or may baptize many without their owning the Pope who yet would be Christians And a Pastor not known or believed or owned is actually no Pastor to them To your confirmation I Reply You misread my words I talk not of Invisible I say it is true that the Universal Church is united to Christ as their universall Head and is Visible 1. In the members 2. In the Profession 3. Christ himself is visible in the Heavens and as much seen of most of the Church as the Pope is that is not at all As the Pope is not Invisible though one of a million see him not no more is Christ who is seen by most of the Church and by the best part even by the glorified You know my meaning Whether you will Call Christ visible or not I leave to you I think he is visible But that which I affirm is that the universal Church hath no other visible universal Head or Pastor But particular Churches have their particular Pastors all under Christ. Of Eph. 4. I easily grant that the whole Church may be said to have Pastors in that all the particular Churches have Pastors But I deny that the whole have any one universal Pastor but Christ. Of that which is the point in controversie you bring no proof If you mean no more then I grant that the whole Church hath Pastors both in that each particular Church hath Pastors and in that unfixed Pastors are to preach to all as they have opportunity then your Minor hath no denyall from me Instead of prosecuting your Argument when you had cast the work of an Opponent upon me you here appeal to any true Logician or expert Lawyer Content I admit of your Appeal But why then did you at all put on the face of an Opponent could you not without this lost labour at first have called me to prove the successive visibility of our Church But to your Appeal Ho all you true Logicians this Learned man and I refer it to your tribunal whether it be the part of an Opponent to contrive his Argument so as that the Negative shall be â—is and then change places and become Respondent and make his adversary Opponent at his Pleasure We leave this cause at your bar and expect your sentence But before we come to the Lawyers bar I must have leave more plainly to state our case We are all agreed that Christianity is the true Religion and Christ the Churches Universal Head and the holy Scriptures the Word of God Papists tell us of another Head and Rule the Pope and Tradition and judgement of the Church Protestants deny these Additionals and hold to Christianity and Scripture only Our Religion being nothing but Christianity we have no Controversie about Their Papall Religion superadded is that which is Controverted They affirm 1. the Right 2. the Antiquity of it We deny both The Right we disprove from Scripture though it belongs to them to prove it The Antiquity is it that is now to be referred Protestancy being the Denyall of Popery it is we that Really have the Negative and the Papists that have the Affirmative The Essence of our Church which is Christian is confessed to have been successively visible But we deny that theirs as Papal hath been so and now they tell us that it is Essential to ours to deny the succession of theirs and therefore require us to prove a succession of ours as one that still hath denyed theirs Now we leave our case to the Lawyers seeing to them you make your appeal 1. Whether the substance of all our cause lie not in this Question Whether the Papacy or universal Government by the Pope be of heaven or of men and so whether it hath been from the beginning which we deny and therefore are called Protestants and they affirm and are therefore called Papists 2. If they cannot first prove a successive visibility of their Papacy and Papal Church then what Law can bind us to prove that it was denied before it did arise in the world or ever any pleaded for it 3. And as to the point of Possession I know not what can be pretended on your side 1. The Possession of this or that particular Parish Church or Tythes is not the thing in question but the universal Headship is the thing But if it were yet it is I that am yet here in Possession and Protestants before me for many ages successively And when possessed you the Headship of the Ethiopian Indian and other extra-imperial Churches never to this day No nor of the Eastern Churches though you had communion with them 2. If the Question be who hath Possession of the universal Church we pretend not to it but only to be a part and the soundest safest part 3. The case of Possession therefore is whether we have not been longer in Possession of our Religion which is bare Christianity then you of your superadded Popery Our Possession is not denied of Christianity Yours of Popery we deny and our denyal makes us called Protestants Let therefore the reason of Logicians Lawyers or any rational sober man determine the case whether it do not first and principally belong to you to prove the visible succession of a Vice-Christ over the universal Church As to your contradictory impositions I Reply 1. Your exception was not exprest and your imposition was peremptory 2. I told you I would be a Papist if you prove that the whole visible Church in all ages hath held the Popes universal headship you say that you have proved it by this argument that either he hath that supremacy or some other Church denying that he hath alwaies had it hath been alwaies visible and that Church you require should be named I Reply 1. Had not you despaired of making good your cause you should have gone on by Argumentation till you had forced me to contradict some common principle 2. If you should shew these Papers to the world and tell them that you have no better proof of the succession of your Papacy then that we prove not that it hath alwaies been denied by the visible Church you would sure turn thousands from Popery if there be so many rational considering impartial men that would peruse them and believe you For any man may know that it could not be expected that the Churches should deny a Vice-Christ before he was sprung up Why did not all the precedent Roman Bishops disclaim the title of universal Bishop or Patriarch till Pelagius and Gregory but because there was none in the world that gave occasion for it How should any Heresie be opposed or condemned before it doth arise But you fairly yield me somewhat here and say that you oblige me not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly denying it but that it was of such a constitution as was inconsistent with any such supremacy or could and did subsist without it Reply I confess your first part is very ingenuous and
wits in and whence they might gather more matter of dispute to puzzle the weak And therefore Tertullian adviseth the ordinary Christians of his time instead of long puzzling disputes with them out of Scripture to hold them to the Churches prescription of the simple doctrine of the Creed But now come in the Papists and 3. will neither be content with Creed nor Scripture but must have a Church or faith partly made up of supplemental Traditions of more then is in all the Scripture and so run further from Tertullian and the ancient simplicity then these Hereticks and yet are not ashamed to glory in this Book of Tertullian as for them Of the Fathers judgement of the Scripture sufficiency see the third part of my safe Religion where I have produced Testimonies enough to prove the Antiquity of the Protestants Religion and the Novelty of Popery But nothing can be so plain and full which pre-engaged men dare not deny Let me instance but in one or two passages of Augustine so plain as might put an end to the whole Controversie Aug. de Doctr. Christian. lib. 2. c. 9. In his omnibus libris timentes Deum pietate mansueti quaerunt voluntatem Dei. Cujus operis laboris prima observatio est ut diximus nosse istos libros si nondum ad intellectum legendo tamen vel mandare memoriae He was not against the Vulgars reading Scripture vel omnino incognitos non habere Deinde illa quae in eis aperte pofita sunt vel praecepta vivendi vel regulae credendi solertiùs diligentiúsque investiganda sunt Quae tanto quisque plura invenit quanto est intelligentia capacior In iis enim quae apertè in Scriptura posita sunt inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi N. B. spem scilicet atque charitatem de quibus libro superiore tractavimus Tum vero facta quadam familiaritate cum ipsa lingua divinarum scripturarum in ea quae obscura sunt aperienda discutienda pergendum est ut ad obscuriores locutiones illustrandas de manifestationibus sumantur exempla quaedam certarum sententiarum testimonia dubitationem de incertis auferant You see here that the Scripture as sufficient to faith and manners to be read by all that fear God and can read and the harder places to be expounded by the plainer was the ancient Rule of faith and Religion And this is the Religion of Protestants Aug. lib. 3. c. 6. contra lit Petiliani pag. 127. Proinde sive de Christo sive de ejus Ecclesia sive de quacunque alia re quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram non dicam Nos nequaquam comparandi â—i qui dixit Licet si nos sed omnino quod secutus adjecit si Angelus de coelo vobis annunciaverit praeterquam quod in Scripturis Evangelicis accepistis Anathema sit I must needs English this short passage to the utter confusion of Popery And therefore whether it be of Christ or whether it be of the Church or whether it be of any other matter that pertaineth to our Faith or Life I will not say if we as being not worthy to be compared with him that said Though we but I will say plainly what he added following If an Angel from heaven shall declare to you any thing besides that which you have received in the Legall and Evangelicall Scriptures let him be Anathema or accursed Was not the Church then purely Protestant in their Religion The Minor needs no proof but our own Profession My profession is the best evidence of my own Religion to another And I profess this to be my Religion which is contained in the holy Scripture as the Test or Law or Rule And let no man contradict me that knoweth not my Religion better then I do The Articles of the Church of England profess this also to be the Religion of the Composers And the Protestants commonly uno ore do profess it It is the great difference between us and the Papists The whole Universal Law of God that we know of and own is contained in Nature and Scripture conjunct But the Papists take somewhat else to be another part We allow by-Laws about mutable undetermined things as aforesaid to Governours But we know no Universal Law of faith and holiness but Nature and Scripture This is our Religion And this Religion contained in Nature and Scriptures hath been still received Obj. We confess Scripture is sufficient to them that have no further light All that is necessary to the salvation of all is in that perspicuously as Costerus Bellarmine and others say but more is necessary to salvation to some Ans. 1. Then at least it containeth all the Essentialls of Christianity which sufficeth to our present end 2. And what maketh more Necessary to me or others here in England if it be not necessary to all Is it because that more is Revealed to us But how and by whom and with what Evidence We are willing to see it and can see no such thing But if this be it if I may speak so plainly without offence it seems it concerneth us to keep out Friars and Jesuites from the Land as much if we knew how as to keep out the Devil For they tell us 1. That we must believe the Popes Soveraignty against the Tradition and judgement of most of the Catholick Church 2. And we must believe our selves to be void of Charity because no Papists contrary to our internall sense and knowledge 3. And we must believe that bread is not bread and wine is not wine contrary to the common senses of all sound men and if we will not thus renounce the Churches Vote Tradition our Certain knowledge Reason and all our Senses we must be damned where as before this doctrine was brought us we might have been saved as having in the Scriptures all things necessary to the salvation of all But the Papists must needs have us shew them where our Church was and name the persons Answ. 1. It were not the Catholike Church if it were confined to any place that is but a part of the Christian territories 2. Nor were it the Catholike Church if we could name half or a considerable part of the members As Augustin oft tells the Donatists it is the Church which begun at Ierusalem and thence is spread throughout the world Part of it may be in one Nation one year which may forfeit and lose it before the next God hath not tyed it to any place 3. To tell you where the Catholike Church hath been in every age and who were the Members or the Leaders requireth much knowledge in History and Cosmography which God hath not made necessary to salvation 4. There are no known Histories that deliver us the Catalogues of the Christians in every age of the world Had any been so foolish as to write them they would have been too chargeable to keep and too
like of the Ordinary Glosses of the Bible which yet seem of greater authority then Aquinas The sixth example is of some not Canonized Saints as Anselm Cantuar. Hugo de Sancto Victore and others as authentick as S. Thomas And say they his Canonization hindereth not which some pretend as of great colour To say that S. Tho. in some part of his doctrine erred in faith derogates not from his Canonization nor from the approbation of his Theologicall doctrine even as to say this of other Saints and chief Doctors derogateth not from their Canonization or approbation For as the Church by Canonizing one a Saint doth not thereby approve all his Deeds so in approving his doctrine it doth not hereby approve all his sayings or writings but only that which is not retracted by himself or corrected by another or deservedly to be corrected as contrary to truth And now when Fathers even the chief and your Saints and highest Doctors have this Testimony from the famous University of Paris to have somewhat hereticall or erroneous in the faith and so who among you is free I leave it to modesty to judge whether the Greeks Armenians c. and we are not of one Faith Religion and Catholick Church for all our differences in some points Have you had all these Nations man by man before your bar and convinced them of pertinaciousness in heresie If not call them not Hereticks till you are willing to be called such your selves and that by your selves And thus I have evinced 1. That the Church of which the Protestants are Members hath been Visible since the dayes of Christ on earth 2. And ex abundanti that the Papal Church as Papal hath not been visible and that Christian Churches without Papal Soveraignty have been Visible since Gregories dayes and the whole Catholick Church was such before And you see both in the Essentialls and in the freedom from the Romish Vice-Christ where our Church hath been before Luther even since Christ. Sir I have performed this task on this supposed condition that you will now do the like as to your own Church and send me in solid Arguments your proof of this Thesis The Church of which the Subjects of the Pope are Members hath been Visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth Where note that it is not the Visibility of your Church as Christian United in Christ the Head that is in Question We grant as Christians all of you are of the true Christian Church that destroy not your Christianity But it is your new Church form as Papal that we question and renounce Protestants are of no Church but the Christian united in Christ The name Protestant signifieth not any essentiall of their Church but their Rejection of your Church as Headed by the Pope You are therefore to prove that your Catholick Church as Headed by the Pope hath been visible in all ages And here I must in Justice expect that you give us such a Definition as you will stand to through the dispute 1. Of the Church 2. Of the Pope and 3. Of the Subjects of the Pope or Papists The term Roman Catholicks would but divert and elude For it is not as Romane that we oppose you that is as inhabitants of Rome or as subject to him as a Bishop of Rome Nor is it as Catholicks that is as of the Universal Christian Church but as Papists that is subjects of the Pope as universal Soveraign or Bishop To dispute of terms not agreed on is lost labour Define first or you do nothing I find of your Writers some by the Church mean the Pope as Gretser Defens cap. 10. lib. 3. de Verbo Dei pag. 1450 1451. By the Church saith he we mean the Pope of Rome and per Ecclesiam Papam interpretantur Non abnuo Some by the Church mean a Council and what they mean by a Council I know not well And some mean the Roman Clergy i. e. of that Diocess And some mean all the Clergy under the Pope And some mean all the people that are his subjects I have given you the Reason of my doubting of your meaning in these terms in a Book come out of the Press since your last to me where I have answered most of yours 2. Let me desire of you such proofs as in your own judgement are cogent I suppose as I have there told you Key pag. 41. cap. 12. that none of you will take either Sense Reason Scripture the Tradition or judgement of most of the Church for a sufficient proof but yet we will accept of them when you argue but ad hominem for we renounce them not I think what ever you say that is not the Determination of the Pope or a Council by him approved which is all one you will give us leave to judge that you are uncertain your selves whether you say true in it if de fide Saith Skul Revius Apol. pro Bellâ—rm c. 6. p. 255. The Popes Power is as the hinge the foundation and that I may comprehend all in a word the summ of the Christian faith Greg. Valent. Anal. fid l. 8. c. 7. The Authority that resideth in the Pope alone is called the Authority of the Church and Councils Bellâ—r de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 3. It is apparent that the whole firmness or strength of Councils is from the Pope not partly of the Pope and partly of the Council Binnius Vol. 2. p. 515. saith Every Council hath just so much strength and authority as the Apostolike seat bestoweth on it But I leave you to give us your own judgement Your Testimonies from Fathers can seem of no great weight to us while you so slight them your selves as commonly you do with what lies or Errors or other incompetency you charge Iustin Mart. Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Victorinus Cyprian Eusebius Epiphanius Prudentius Hierom Lactantius Augustine Procopius Theodoret Isidore Euthymius Sozomen Oecumenius Bernard and all the Fathers see Dr. Iames Corrupt of Fath. Part. 4. p. 2 3. Tell us therefore how far you credit them Sir if you refuse thus first to explain your terms and then prove the Visibility of your Church as Papal successively as I have proved the Visibility of the Church that I am of I shall be forced to conclude that you love not the light but at once give up your cause and the reputation of your impartial Love of truth Addenda Miscellanea COncil Ephes. 1. in Epistola ad Nestor Tom. 1 fol. 315. ed. Pet. Crab. Petrus Iohannes aequalis sunt ad alterutrum dignitatis Comment in epist Synodal Basil. p. 31. p. 40. Impress Colon. 1613. saith that The Provinces subject to the four great Patriarchs from the beginning of the Christian Church did know no other supream but their own Patriarcks And if the Pope be a Patriarck it is by the Church If he be Head of all Churches it is by the Church And whereas we have said that it is expressed in the
terms of unity then these shall never attain it but raise up a new Sect and encrease our wounds I am as much for unity as ever was Cassander Erasmus Grotius or any of the Reconcilers But I am certain that to subscribe to the Trent Decrees and Creed and to turn Papist or Semi-Papist or participate of any sin for peace is not the way Let some plead for all the Greek corruptions and some for the Popes supremacy regulated by Canons and some for his meer Primacy as principium unitatis and his Government of all the West as Patriark let them digladiate about a Pope and Council as wisely as Greece and Troy did fight ten years for a beautiful whore I am sure that none of these are the way to the Churches Unity and Peace as I have opened in my description of the true Catholike Church Nor will their design be more successeful that would so discordantly agree us all with the first three hundred years as to deny the first hundred or two hundred to be our pattern and to make all the forms and ceremonies to be necessary to our concord which the third or fourth Century used but as things indifferent with diversity and mutation and mutual forbearance But of the terms of Catholike Vnity I have spoken as in the forecited papers so in a Pacificatory Letter of the Worcestershire Ministers to Mr. J. Dury and if God will shall do it yet more â—ully And of the evils in Popery that move me to distast it having given a Breviate in an Epistle before another mans Book which I perceive is seen of very few I shall here annex so much of that Epistle as is pertinent to the present business Readers WEre not the Iudgements of God so dreadfull and infatuation so lamentable in matters of everlasting consequence and sin so odious and the calamities of the Church the dishonour of God and the Damnation of Souls such deplorable things as tolerate not a laughter in the standers by it would seem one of the most ridiculous things in the World that a man of seeming wisdom should be a Papist and that so many Princes and learned men with the vulgar multitude should be able so far to renounce or intoxicate their Reason while they are awake And a Papist would be described to be one that sets up his understanding to be the laughing-stock of the sober rational World There are abundance of Controversies among Physitians that concern mens lives and yet I have heard of none so vain as to step forth and challenge the Authority of being the universal Decider of them or to charge God with solly or oversight if he have not appointed some such universal Iudge in the World to end all Controversies in matters of such weight But if in Physick's Law or any of the Sciences the Controversies should be never so many or so great if yet you could resolve them into sense it self and bring all to the judgement of mens eyes and ears and taste and feeling who would not laugh or hiss at him that would still make them the matters of serious doubts The Papists finding that man is 〈◊〉 perfect and knoweth but in part and 〈◊〉 the Scripture there are some things are hard to be understood and that Earth hath not so much Light as Heaven imagine that hereby they have a fair advantage to plead for an universal terrestrial Iudge and to reproach God if he have appointed none such and next to plead that their Pope or his approved Councils must needs have this Authority And when they come to the Decision they are not ashamed to see after so many hundred years pretentions that the World is but basfled with the empty name of a Judge of Controversies and that Difficulties are no less Difficulties still and Controversies are nowhere so voluminous as with them But this is a small matter with them Their Iudge sâ—â—ms much wiser when he is silent then when he speaks When he comes to a Decision and formeth up thereby the Hodge-podge of Popery they seem not to smile at nor be ashamed of the Picture which they have drawn which is of an Harlot shewing her nakedness and committing her lewdness in the open Assemblies in the sight of the Sún They openly proclaim their shame against the light of all the acknowledged Principles in the World their own or others and in opposition to all or almost all that is commendable among men The charge seems high but in a few words take the proof 1. They confess the Scripture to be the Word of God and yet when we would appeal to that as the Rule of Faith and Life or as a divine Revelation in our Disputes they fly off and tell us of its obscurity and the necessity of a Iudge If they meet with a Hoc est corpus meum they seem for a while to be zealous for the Scripture But tell them that Paul in 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. doth call it Bread after the Consecration no less than three times in the three next Verses and then Scripture is non-sense to them till the Pope make sense of it It is one of their principal labours against us to argue against the Scriptures sufficiency to this use By no means can we prevail with them to stand to the Decision of the Scripture 2. They excessively cry up the Church and appeal to its Decision and therefore we might hope that here if anywhere we might have some hold of them But when it comes to the Point they not only disown the judgement of the Church but impudently call Christ's Spouse a Strumpet and cut off in their uncharitable imagination two or three parts of the universal Church as Hereticks or Schismaticks The judgement of the Churches in Armenia Ethiopia Egypt Syria the Greeks and many more besides the Reformed Churches in the West is against their Popes universal Vicarship or Soveraignty and many of their Errours that depend thereon And yet their judgement is not regarded by this Faction And if a third or fourth part such as it is of the Universal Church may cry up themselves as the Church to be appealed to and condemn the far greater part why may not a tenth or a twentieth part do the like Why may not the Donatists the Novatians or the Greeks much more do so as well as Papists 3. They cry up Tradition And when we ask them How we shall know it and where it is to be found they tell us principally in the profession and practice of the present Church And yet when two or three parts of the universal Church profess that Tradition is against the Papal Monarchy and other Points depending on it they cast Tradition behind their backs 4. They cry up the Fathers and when we bring their judgements against the substance of Popery they sometime vilifie or accuse them as erroneous and sometime tell us that Fathers as well as Scripture must be no otherwise understood than their Church
many or rather many more For more be saln off the Tenduè Nubia and other parts then the Protestants that came in 4. About the year 600. there were many more incomparably and I think then but at least of 400. years after Christ I never yet saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world that is one that was for the Popes Universal Monarchy or Vice-Christ-ship So that most of the Catholike Church about three parts to one hath been against you to this day and all against you for many hundred years Could I name but a Nation against you I should think I had done nothing much less if I cited a few men in an age 5. And all those of Ethiopia India c. that are without the verge and awe of the Ancient Roman Empire never so much as gave the Pope that Primacy of dignity which those within the Empire gave him when he was chief as the Earl of Arundel is of the Earls of England that governeth none of them and as the Lord Chancellor may be the chief judge that hath no power in alieno foro or as the Eldest Justice is chief in the County and on the bâ—nch that ruleth not the rest Mistake not this Primacy for Monarchy nor the Romane Empire for the world and you can say nothing At present ad hominem I give you sufficient proof of this succession As you use to say that the present Church best knew the Judgement of the former age and so on to the heâ—d and so Tradition beareth you out I turn this unresistibly against you The far greatest part of Christians in the world that now are in possession of the doctrine contrary to your Monarchy tell us that they had it from their Fathers and so on And as in Councils so with the Church Real the Major part three to one is more to be credited then the Minor part especially when it is a visible self-advancement that the Minor part insisteth on 6. And were not this enough I might add that your western Church it self in its Representative Body at Constance and Basil hath determined that not the Pope but a General Council is the chief Governor under Christ and that this haâ—h been still the judgement of the Church and that its Heresie in whoever that hold the Contrary 7. And no man can prove that one half or tenth part of your people caâ—â—ed Papists are of your opinion For they are not called to profess it by words and their obedience is partly forced and partly upon other principles some obeying the Pope as their western Patriarch of chief dignity and some and most doing all for their own peace and safety Their outward acts will prove no more And now Sir I have told you what Church of which we are members hath been visible yea and what part of it hath opposed the Vice-Christ of Rome This I delayed not an hour after I received yours because you desired speed Accordingly I crave your speedy return and intreat you to advise with the most learned men whether Jesuites or others of your party in London that think it worth their thoughts and time not that I have any thoughts of being their Equal in learning but partly because the case seemeth to me so exceeding palpable that I think it will suffice me to supply all my defects against the ablest men on earth or all of them together of your way and principally because I would see your strength and know the most that can be said that I may be rectified if Jerr which I suspect not or confirmed the more if you cannot evince it and so may be true to Gods Truth and my own soul. Rich. Baxter Mr. Iohnsons second PAPER Sir IT was my happiness to have this Argument transmitted into your learned and quiet hands which gratefully returns as fair a measure as it received from you that Animosities on both sides seposed Truth may appear in its full splendour and seat it self in the Center of both our hearts To your first Exception My Thesis was sufficiently made cleer to my friend who was concerned in it and needed no explication in its address to the learned To your second Exception My Propositions were long that my Argument as was required might be very short and not exceed the quantity of half a sheet which enforced me to penetrate many Syllogisms into one and by that means in the first not to be so precise in form as otherwise I should have been To your third Exception Seeing I required nothing but Logicall form in Answering I conceive that regard was more to be had amongst the learned to that then to the errours of the vulgar that whilest ignorance attends to most words learning might attend to most reason To your fourth Exception My Argument contains not precisely the terms of my Thesis because when I was called upon to hasten my Arguâ—ent I had not then at hand my Thesis Had I put more in my Thesis then I prove in my Argument I had been faulty but proving more then my Thesis contained as I cleerly do no body hath reason to find fault with me save my self The reall difference betwixt Assemblies of Christians and Congregation of Christians and betwixt Salvation is only to be had in those Assemblies and Salvation is not to be had out of that Congregation I understand not seeing all particular assemblies of true Christians must make one Congregation To your Answer to my first Syllogism He who distinguishes Logically the terms of any proposition must not apply his distinction to some one part of the term only but to the whole term as it stands in the proposition distinguished Now in my proposition I affirm that the Congregation of Christians I speak of there is such a Congregation that it is the true Church of Christ that is as all know the whole Catholike Church and you distinguish thus That I either mean by Congregation the whole Catholike Church or only some part of it as if one should say Whatsoever Congregation of men is the Common-wealth of England and another in answer to it should distinguish either by Congregation of men you mean the whole Common-wealth or some part of it when all men know that by the Common-wealth of England must be meant the whole Common-wealth for no part of it is the Common-wealth of England Again you distinguish that some things are Essentials or Necessaries and others Accidents which are acknowledged or practised in the Church Now to apply this distinction to my Proposition you must distinguish that which I say is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by the Institution of Christ either to be meant of an Essential or an Accident when all the world knows that whatsoever is acknowledged to have have been ever in the Church by Christs Institution cannot be meant of any Accidental thing but of a necessary unchangeable and Essential thing in Christs true Church If one should advance this
THE Successive Visibility OF THE CHURCH OF Which the PROTESTANTS are the soundest Members I. Defended against the Opposition of Mr. William Iohnson II. Proved by many Arguments By Richard Baxter Whereto is added 1. An account of my judgement to Mr. J. how far Hereticks are or are not in the Church 2. Mr. Js. Explication of the most used terms with my Quere's thereupon and his Answer and my Reply 3. An Appendix about successive Ordination 4. Letters between me and T. S. a Papist with a Narrative of the success LONDON Printed by R. W. for Nevil Simmons Bookseller in Kederminster and are to be sold by Francis Tyton at the three Daggers in Fleet-street 1660. The Preface Reader IF thou meet me at the threshold with a What need any more against Popery then is written I must answer thee No need if all that is already written were improved Nor were there need of any writings if men would not renounce their common senses We cannot hope or pretend by any writings to bring any controversie to a plainer better issue then to resolve it by the judgement of the common senses of all the world and yet this doth not end the controversies between us and the Papists whether Bread be Bread and Wine be Wine when they are seen felt tasted c. But some writings are usefull to awake men to the use of Reason and to help them to improve their other helps And as Seneca saith Multum egerunt qui ante nos suerunt sed non peregerunt suscipiendi tamen sunt Though I thought I had said enough before in three or four former writings yet the weight of the Question here debated and the common use that 's made of it by the Papists have perswaded me that this also will be usefull to the Church And I must confess the moderation and ingenuity of the Gentleman that I contend with did not only tempt me into the undertaking at the first but also did incline my thoughts to a publication there being here no stinking breath to annoy and drive away the Reader I have learned by experience that its only prudent charitable self-denying humble men that are fit to be engaged in controversies We bring fire to Gun-powder when we deal with proud malignant wretches such as I have lately had to do with that have souls so forsaken and consciences so seared as that they seem to make malicious lies their glory and delight Some think that the contending with such is a needfull though an unsavoury work I confess a Lyar is not to be encouraged nor our just reputation to be prodigally cast away or contemptuously neglected Duo sunt necessaria saith Augustine Conscientia fama Conscientia propter Deum fama propter proximum But for our selves Gods approbation is enough and for others if Duty satisfie them not contending will not Bacchae bacchanti si velis adversarier Ex insana insaniorem facies feriet saepius saith Plaut If Truth make blinded men our enemies and the performance of our duty be our greatest crime and no purgation be left us but by becoming erroneous or ungodly it s not worth our labour to word it with such men Pride and Malice hearken not to Reason Apologies will not cure the envy of a Cain or the pride of a Diotrephes or the hypocrisie and persecuting fury of a Pharisee But as August Conscientiam malam laudantis praeconium non sanat neâ— bonam vulnerat convitium Praise healeth not an ill Conscience and reproach cannot wound a good one Conscience respects a higher tribunal Could a Calumniator be believed it were a small thing to be judgeed by man and Conscia mens recti famae nâ—eâ—dacia ridet But when they make themselves the objects of the common compassion or derision they spare me the labour of a confutation It s enough to say with the Philosopher Ego sic vivam ut nemo illi credat I will so live that no man shall believe him when they themselves will so lie that no man or next to none shall believe them It s a far more necessary and profitable employment to oppose our sins then our accusers and to see that we are blameless then that we are so reputed and to escape the temptations of Satan rather then the calumnies of his instruments It s better this wind offend our ears then guilt should wound our hearts Penalty is heavier then injurious persecution because of its relation to guilt but culpability it self is worse then both Poena potest demi culpa perennis erit Mors faciet certe ne sim cum venerit exul Ne non peccarem mors quoque non faciet And even when God hath fully pardoned us Litura tamen extat A soul that knows the evil of sin and seeth by faith the dreadfull Majesty and the judgement to which he must stand or fall is taken up with greater cares then the defence of his reputation with men except as Gods honour or the good of souls may be concerned in it Another thing that encouraged me to this engagement was that my Antagonist seemed exceeding desirous of a close syllogistical way of arguing which put me in hope of a speedier and better issue then with wordy wandring Sophisters I could expect I never liked either the feasts that consist of sawce and ceremony with little meat or the bawling rooks that will not receive a bit without a troublesome noise Sed tacitus pasci si posset corvus haberet Plus depis rixa multo minus invidiaeque Nor the prodigal covetousness that turns the Cock when none requireth it and plucks up the flood-gates and sets the mill a going when there is no grist omnia vult dicere nihil audire When words are too cheap it either proves them worthless or makes them so esteemed The sentence of an Orator and the very syllables of a Disputant should be short There should be no more dishes then are necessary for the meat nor no more straw then is necessary to sustain the grain Frugality of speech and sermonem habere rebus parem do shew and make our speeches valuable Truth would be adorned but not covered attended but not crowded proclaimed but not buried in an heap of words Arguments are like money that is valuable according to the mettal and the weight and not according to the number of pieces or curiosity of the stamp And a third thing that made me the willinger to this task was that the assaults of Juglers that thought to catch me under the names and mask of Seekers Behmenists and such other sects had possessed me with so much indignation and distaste that I was glad to meet with a bare-fac't Papist that was not ashamed of his Religion but would profess himself to be what he is I could never hear that the Papists won so many and so considerable persons this threescore years by open dealing as I have cause to think they have won by fraud under
expoundeth them 5. They plead for an appeal to Councils and though we easily prove that none of them were universal yet such as they were they call them all Reprobate which were not approved by their Pope let the number of Bishops there be never so great And those that were approved if they speak against them they reject also either with lying shifts denying the approbation or saying the acts are not de fide or not conciliariter facta or the sense must be given by their present Church or one such contemptible shift or other 6. At least one would think they should stand to the judgement of the Pope which yet they will not for shame forbids them to own the Doctrine of those Popes that were Hereticks or Infidels and by Councils so judged And others they are forced to disown because they contradict their Predecessors And at Rome the Cardinals are the Pope while he that hath the name is oft made light of And how infallible he is judged by the French and the Venetians how Sixtus the fifth was valued by the Spaniards and by Bellarmine is commonly known 7. But all this is nothing to their renunciation of humanity even of the common senses and reason of the world When the matter is brought to the Decision of their eyes and taste and feeling whether Bread be Bread and Wine be Wine and yet all Italy Spain Austria Bravaria c. cannot resolve it yea generally unless some latent Protestant do pass their judgement against their senses the senses of all sound men in the World that not in a matter beyond the reach of sense as whether Christ be there spiritually but in a matter belonging to sense if any thing belong to it as whether Bread be Bread c. Kings and Nobles Prelates and Priests do all give their judgement that all their senses are deceived And is it possible for these men then to know any thing or any controversie between us and them to be decided If we say that the Sun is light or that the Pope is a man and Scripture legible or that there are the Writings of Councils and Fathers extant in the World they may as well concur in a denyal of all this or any thing else that sense should judge of If they tell us that Scripture requireth them to contradict all their senses in this point I answer 1. Not that Scripture before mentioned that calleth it Bread after the Consecration thrice in the three next Verses 2. And how know they that there is such a Scripture if all their senses be so fallible If the certainty of sense be not supposed a little learning or wit might satisfie them that Faith can have no certainty But is it not a most dreadful judgement of God that Princes and Nations Learned men and some that in their way are conscientious should be given over to so much inhumanity and to make a Religion of this brutishness and worse and to persecute those with Fire and Sword that are not so far forsaken by God and by their reason and that they should so solicitously labour the perversion of States and Kingdoms for the promoting of stupidity or stark madness 8. And if we go from their Principles to their Ends or Wayes we shall soon see that they are also against the Unity of the Church while they pretend this as their chiefest Argugument to draw men to their way They set up a corrupted Faction and condemn the far greater part of the Church and will have no unity with any but those of their own Faction and Subjection and fix this as an essential part of their Religion creating thereby an impossibility of universal concord 9. They also contradict the Experience of many thousand Saints asserting that they are all void of the Love of God and saving Grace till they become subject to the Pope of Rome when as the Souls of these Believers have Experience of the Love of God within them and feel that Grace that proveth their Iustification I wonder what kind of thing it is that is called Love or Holiness in a Papist which Protestants and other Christians have not and what is the difference 10. They are most notorious Enemies to Charity condemning most of the Christian world to Hell for being out of their subjection 11. They are notorious Enemies to Knowledge under pretence of Obedience and Unity and avoiding Heresie They celebrate their Worship in a Language not understood by the vulgar Worshippers They hinder the People from Reading the holy Scriptures which the ancient Fathers exhorted men and women to as an ordinary thing The quality of their Priests and People testifies this 12. They oppose the Purity of divine Worship setting up a multitude of humane Inventions instead thereof and idolatrously for no less can be said of it adoring a piece of conserated Bread as their God 13. They are Opposers of Holiness both by the foresaid enmity to Knowledge Charity and purity of Worship and by many unholy Doctrines and by deluding Souls with an outside histrionicall way of Religion never required by the Lord consisting in a multitude of Ceremonies and worshipping of Angels and the Souls of Saints and Images and Crosses c. Let experience speak how much the Life of Holiness is promoted by them 14. They are Enemies to common Honesty teaching the Doctrines of Equivocations and Mental Reservations and making many hainous sins venial and many of the most odious sins to be Duties as killing Kings that are excommunicated by the Pope taking Oaths with the foresaid Reservations and breaking them c. For the Jesuits Doctrine Montaltus the Jansenist and many of the French Clergy have pretty well opened it And the Pope himself hath lately been fain to publish a condemnation of their Apology And yet the power and interest of the Jesuites and their followers among them is not altogether unknown to the World 15. They are Enemies to Civil Peace and Government if there be any such in the World as their Doctrine and Practice of killing and deposing excommunicate Princes breaking Oaths c. shews Bellarmine that will go a middle way gives the Pope power in ordine ad spiritualia and indirectly to dispose of Kingdoms and tells us that it is unlawfull to tolerate Heretical Kings that propagate their Heresie that is the ancient Faith How well Doctor Heylin hath vindicated their Council of Laterane in this whose Decrees stand as a Monument of the horrid treasonable Doctrine of the Papists I shall if God will hereafter manifest In the mean time let any man read the words of the Council and Iudge And now whether a Religion that is at such open enmity with 1. Scripture 2. The Church 3. Tradition 4. Fathers 5. Councils 6. Some Popes 7. The common senses and Reason of all the World even their own 8. Vnity of Christians 9. Knowledge 10. Experience of Believers 11. Charity 12. Purity of Worship 13. Holiness 14. Common Honesty
Church how described by Augustine 227 Optatus 231 Tertullian 232 The third Argument 238 The fourth Argument 241 242 Arguments proving the Visibility of a Church without the Papacy since Christ. Argument first from the Council of Calcedon 242 Argument 2. From the silence of the Ancients in cases where the allegation of the Papal power would have been most pertinent and necessary 244 Argument 3. From the Tradition and Testimony of the greatest part of the Church 248 Argument 4. From the Churches without the verge of the Empire not subject to the Pope 249 Argument 5. From the Eastern Churches within the Empire not subjects of the Pope 251 Argument 6. From the full Testimony of Greâ—ory the first p. 252 c. defended against Bellarmine Argument 7. From the Confession of â—â—ieâ— Papists 〈◊〉 Sylvius Melchioâ— Câ—nus Reynerius 267 Argument 8. From Historical Testimony about the Original of Vniversal Hâ—â—dship 269 Argument 9. The generality of Christians in the first ages and most in the latter free from owning the Papacy 271 Argument 10. Most Christians in all ages ignorant of Popery 275 Object The Armenians Greeks c. differ from Protestants Answered 280 Misceâ—â—any considerable Testimonies 288 Mr. Johnsons exception 292 My Answer to his exception shewing in what sense Hereticks are or are not in the Church applyed to the Eastern and Southern Churches 293 c. Mr. Johnsons Explication of the most used terms with my Quere's thereupon and his Answer and my Reply 1. Of the Church 311 2. Of Heresie 324 c. 3. Of the Pope 330 c. 4. Of Bishops 337 5. Of Tradition 342 Of General Councils 345 6. Of Schism 350 An Appendix about successive Ordination 355 Letters between me and T. S. a Papist with a Narrative of the success written by his friend 363 ERRATA PAge 176. l. 24. for it r. that p. 179. l. 14. r. Freheri p. 217. l. 26. r. necessitate p. 271. l. 6. r. Ecclesia Romana p. 355. l. 2. for here r. hear Mr. Iohnsons first PAPER THe Church of Christ wherein only Salvation is to be had never was nor is any other then those Assemblies of Christians who were united in communion and obedience to S. Peter in the beginning since the Ascension of Christ. And ever since to his lawful successors the Bishops of Rome as to their chief Pastor Proof Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful successors the Bishops of Rome ever since the Ascension of Christ to have been and now to be by the Institution of Christ their chief Head and Governour on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ. But there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ. Ergo there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians which acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful successors the Bishops of Rome ever to have been since the Ascension of Christ and now to be by the Institution of Christ their chief Head and Governour on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ. The Minor is clear For all Christians agree in this that to be saved it is necessary to be in the true Church of Christ that only being his mystical Body Spouse and Mother of the faithful to which must belong all those who ever have been are or shall be saved The Major I prove thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians as now the true Church of Christ hath been alwaies visible since the time of Christ either under persecution or in peace and flourishing But no Congregation of Christians hath been alwaies visible since the time of Christ either under persecution or in peace and flourishing save that only which acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful successors the Bishops of Rome ever to have been since the Ascension of Christ and now to be by Christs Institution their chief Head and Governour on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ. Ergo whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ acknowledges St. Peter and his lawful successors the Bishops of Rome ever to have been since the Ascension of Christ and now to be by Christs Institution their chief Head and Governour on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ. The Major is proved thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians hath alwaies had visible Pastors and People united hath alwaies been visible either under persecution or in peace and flourishing But whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath alwaies had visible Pastors and People united Ergo whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath alwaies been visible either under persecution or in peace and flourishing The Major of this last Sylogism is evident for seeing a visible Church is nothing but a visible Pastor and people united where there have alwaies been visible Pastors and people united there hath alwaies been a visible Church The Minor I prove from Ephesians cap. 4. ver 10 11 12 13 14 c. Where S. Paul saies that Christ had Instituted that there should be Pastors and Teachers in the Church for the work of the Ministry and preserving the people under their respective charges from being carried away with every wind of doctrine c. which evidently shews those Pastors must be visible seeing the work of the Ministry which Preaching and Administration of Sacraments and Governing their flocks are all external and visible actions And this shews likewise that those Pastors and People must be alwaies visible because they are to continue from Christs Ascension untill we all meet together in the unity of faith c. which cannot be before the day of judgement Neither can it be said as some say that this promise of Christ is only conditional since to put it to be so without evident Reason giveth scope to every one at his pleasure to make every other promise of Christ to be conditional And so we shall be certain of nothing that Christ hath promised neither that shall alwaies be a visible or invisible Church nor any Church at all no nor of Judgement nor of Eternal life or of the Resurrection of the dead c. for one may say with as much ground as this is said that some conditions were included in all those promises which being not fulfilled hinders the execution of them There remains only to prove the Minor of the second Sylogism viz. That no Congregation of Christians hath been alwaies visible c. save that which acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful successors c. to be their chief Head and Governour c. next under Christ. This Minor I prove by obliging the answerers to nominate any Congregation of Christians which alwaies till this present time since Christ hath been visible either under persecution or in peace and flourishing save that only which acknowledges S.
my Nego Concedo c. exacted from the Respondent and nothing else follows not For that prescription is to be understood that the Respondent of himself without scope given him by the opponent was not to use any other forms in Answering But if the opponent should require that the respondent give reasons or instances or proofs of what he denies that then the Respondent is to proceed to them And this is most ordinary in all Logicall Disputations where strict form is observed and known to every yong Logitian Instances therefore demanded by the opponent were not excluded but only such excursions out of form as should proceed from the respondent with out being exacted by the opponent You say though I make a Negative of it I may put it in other terms at my pleasure But the question is not what I may do but what I did I required not an Answer to an Argument which I may frame but to that which I had then framed which was expressed in a negative proposition You tell me if I prove the Popes universal Supremacy you will be a Papist And I tell you I have proved it by this very Argument That either He hath that supremacy or some other Church denying that he hath alwaies had it hath been alwaies visible and that Church I require should be named if any such be and whilest you refuse to name that Church as here you do you neither answer the Argument nor become a Papist You say I affirm and I must prove I say in the proposition about which we now speak I affirm not and so must not prove and you by denying it must affirm and so must prove You prove it is not your part here to prove because the Popes supremacy could not be denyed before it was affirmed and you must be obliged to prove that denyal I oblige you not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly denying it but that it was of such a Constitution as was inconsistent with any such supremacy or could and did subsist without it which is an Affirmative You affirm that because I say you cannot be saved if you deny that Supremacy and you say that I may be saved though I hold it therefore you are not bound to prove what I reprove but I to prove my negative proposition But this would prove as well that a Mahumetan is not bound to prove his religion to you but you to prove yours to him because you say he cannot be saved being a Mahumetan and he says that you may be saved being a Christian. See you not that the obligation of proof in Logicall form depends not of the first position or Thesis but must be drawn from the immediate proposition affirmative or negative which is or ought to be proposed To what you say of an Accident and a corrupt part I have already answered To what you say of a vice-king not being necessary to the Constitution of a kingdom but a king and subjects only is true if a vice-king be not instituted by the Full power of an Absolute Authority over that kingdom to be an ingredient into the essence of the Kingdom in the Kings absence But if so constituted it will be essential now my proposition saith and my Argument proves that by the Absolute Authority of Christ Saint Peter and his Successors were instituted Governors in Christs place of his whole visible Church and whatsoever Government Christ institutes of his Church must be essential to his Church You see now the Disparity You insist to have me prove a Negative and I insist to have you prove that Affirmative which you fall into by denying my Negative and leave it to judgement whose exaction is the more conform to reason and logical form But if I prove not here say you the whole Catholike Churches holding ever the Popes Supremacy you shall take it as a giveing up my cause I tell you again that I have proved it by this very Argument by force of Syllogistical form and it is not reasonable to judge that I have given up my cause if I prove not again what I have already proved Your taking upon you the part of an opponent now is you know out of Season when that is yours mine shall be the Respondent AT length you give fair attempt to satisfie your obligation and to return such an instance as I demanded of you But you are too free by much in your offer I demand one Congregation and you promise to produce more then an hundred But as they abound in the number so are they deficient in the quality which I require I demand that the Answerer nominate any Congregation of Christians which alwayes till this present time since Christ hath been visible c. and you tell me of more then an hundred Congregations besides that which acknowledges Saint Peter c. whereof not any one hath been all that designed time visible which is as if I had demanded an Answerer to nominate any Family of Gentry which hath successively continued ever since William the Conquerour till this present time and he who undertakes to satisfie my demand should nominate more then a hundred Families whereof not so much as one continued half that time You nominate first all these present the Greeks Armenians Ethiopians besides the Protestants These you begin with Now to satisfie my demand you must assert that these whom you first name are both one Congregation and have been visible ever since Christs time This you do not in the pursute of your Allegations For Numb 2. you nominate none at all but tell me that in the last age there were as many or more What were these as many or more were they the same which you nominated first or others I required some determinate Congregation to be nominated all the while and you tell me of as many or more but say not of what determinate congregation they were In your Num. 3. you tell me in the former ages till one thousand there were neer as many or rather many more A fair account But in the mean time you nominate none much less prosecute you those with whom you begun Num. 4. You say in the year six hundred there were many more incomparably What many what more were they the same which you nominated in the beginning and made one Congregation with them or were they quite different Congregations what am I the wiser by your saying many more incomparably when you tell me not what or who they were Then you say But at least for four hundred years after Christ I never yet saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world that is one that was for the Popes universal Monarchy or vice-Christship What then are there no proofs in the world but what you have seen or may not many of those proofs be valid which you have seen though you esteem them not so and can you think it reasonable upon your single not-seeing or not-judging
Pope have made it an Article of their faith that the whole substance of the Bread and Wine is turned into the Body and Blood of Christ so that there is left no Bread or Wine but only that colour quantity and tast that before belonged to it And if you know not Bread when you eat it or Wine when you drink it and when the senses of all the sound men in the world concur with yours is it not vain for me or any man to dispute with you Can you have any thing brought to a surer judgement then to all your senses And yet no doubt but your seducers can say something to prove that Bread is not Bread when you see and eat it No wonder then if they can confute me But do they indeed believe themselves how is it possible there is no exercise of reason and belief that supposeth not the certainty of sense If I cannot know Bread and Wine when I see touch â—ast them then cannot I know the Pope the Councils the Scripture the Priest or any thing else If you think to let go this point of Popery and hold the rest you know not what Popery is for a Pope and Council having determined it you are damned by them for denying the faith and if you depart from the infallibility of their Rule and judge in points of faith or at least from the obligation of it in one thing they will confess to you that you may as well do it in more False in this and certain in nothing is their own conclusion Sir I have not been unwilling to know the truth having a soul to save or lose as well as you and having as much reason to be loth to perish If you have so far forfeited the Grace of God as meerly to follow the pride of a pretended Vice-Christ that hath turned doctrine into error worship into superstition and dead formality light into darkness discipline into confusion mixt with tyranny if meerly to set up one Tyrant over the consciences and bodies too of all believers in the world you can fall into a Sect deny Scripture Reason the Judgement and Tradition of most of the Church and your own and all mens eye-sight tast and other senses the Lord have mercy on you if you be not past it I have done with you yet remaining An unfeigned desirer of your welfare and lamenter of the Apostacies and giddiness of these times Richard Baxter May. 18. 1659. Did you know what it is by loose and false allegations to be put to read so many Volumes in great part in folio to try whether the alledger say true or false you would not expect that I should return an answer and read so much of so many folios in any less then ten or eleven daies which I think hath been all that I have had to write and read so much The Reader must take notice that I wrote the former Letter to the person that sent Mr. Johnsons Letters with a charitable jealousie that if he were himself in doubt he might be resolved But in his return he fully disclaimed Popery and assured me that it is for the sake of some friends that he desired my labour and not for his own R. B. The Reply to Mr. Johnsons second PAPER Sir THE multitude and urgency of my employments gave me not leave till this day May 2. so much as to read over all your Papers But I shall be as loth to break off our Disputation as you can be though perhaps necessity may sometime cause some weeks delay And again I profess my indignation against the Hypocrital Jugling of this age doth provoke me to welcome so ingenuous and candid a disputant as your self with great content But I must confess also that I was the less hasty in sending you this Reply because I desired you might have leisure to peruse a Book which I published since your last A Key for Catholikes seeing that I have there answered you already and that more largely then I am like to do in this Reply For the sharpness of that I must crave your patience the persons and cause I thought required it Ad 1m. What explications were made to your Friend of your Thesis I could not take notice of who had nothing but your writing to Answer 2. If you will not be precise in Arguing you had little reason to expect much less so strictly to exact a precise Answer which cannot be made as you prescribed to an Argument not precise 3. I therefore expect accordingly that the unlearned be not made the Judges of a dispute which they are not fit to judge of seeing you desire us to avoid their road 4. Again I say if you will not be precise in arguing I can hardly be so in answering And by a Congregation of Christians you may mean Christians politically related to one Head whether Christ or the Pope But the word Assemblies expresseth their actuall Assembling together and so excludeth all Christians that are or were Members of no particular assemblies from having Relation as Members of Christ our Head or the Pope your Head and so from being of the Congregation as you Call The Church universall 5. I had great reason to avoid the snare of an equivocation or ambiguity of which you gave me cause of jealousie by your whatsoever as I told you as seeming to intimate a false supposition To your Like I answer it is unlike and still more intimates the false supposition Whatsoever Congregation of men is the Common-wealth of England is a phrase that importeth that There is a Congregation of men which is not the Common-wealth of England Which is true there being more men in the world So whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church doth seem to import that you suppose there is a Congregation of Christians univocally so called that are not the true Church which you would distinguish from the other Which I only let you know at the entrance that I deny that you may not think it granted Yet I must tell you that nothing is more ordinary then for the Body to be said to do that which a part of it only doth As that the Church administreth Sacraments Discipline Teatheth c. the Church is assembled in such a Council c. when yet it is but a small part of the Church that doth these things And when Bellarmine Gretser c. say the Church is the infallible judge of Controversies of faith they mean not the whole Church which containeth every Christian when they tell you that It is the Pope they mean and therefore I had reason to enquire into your sense unless I would willfully be over-reacht You now satisfie me that you mean it universally viz. â—ll that Congregation or Church of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ doth acknowledge c. which I told you I deny 6. To my following distinction you say that all the world knows that whatsoever is acknowledged
to have been ever in the Church by Christs instiution cannot be meant of any accidental thing but of a necessary unchangeable and essentiall thing in Christs true Church To which I Reply Either you see the gross fallacy of this defence or you do not If you do not then never more call for an exact Disputant nor look to be delivered from your errors by argumentation though never so convincing If you do then you are not faithfull to the truth In your Major proposition the words being many as you say you penetrated divers arguments together ambiguities were the easier hidden in the heap That which I told you is Accidental to the Church and that but to a corrupted part was the Acknowledging of the Papacy as of Christs Institution and therefore if it were granted that a thing of Christs Institution could not be Accidental yet the Acknowledgment that is the Opinion or asserting of it may If the Church by mistake should think that to be Essential to it which is not though it will not thence follow that its Essence is but an Accident yet it will follow that both the false opinion and the thing it self so falsly conceited to be essential are but accidents or not essential You say It cannot be meant of any Accidental thing But 1. That Meaning it self of theirs may be an Accident 2. And the question is not what they Mean that is Imagine or affirm it to be But what it is in deed and truth That may be an Accident which they think to be none 2. But that which you say all the world knows is a thing that all the world of Christians except your selves that ever I heard of do know or acknowledge to be false What! doth all the world know that Christ hath instituted in his Church nothing but what is essential to it I should hope that few in the Christian world would be so ignorant as ever to have such a thought if they had the means of knowledge that Protestants would have them have There is no natural body but hath natural Accidents as well as Essence Nor is there any other society under heaven Community or Policy that hath not its Accidents as well as Essence And yet hath Christ instituted a Church that hath nothing but Essence without Accidents Do you build upon such foundations What! upon the denyal of common principles and sence But if you did you should not have feigned all the world to do so too Were your asseriton true then every soul were cut off from the Church and so from salvation that wanted any thing of Christs Institution yea for a moment And then what would become of you You give me an instance in the Eucharist But 1. Will it follow that if the Eucharist be not Accidental or integral but Essential that therefore every thing Instituted by Christ is Essentiall surely no 2. The Question being not whether the Being of the Eucharist in the Church be Essential to the Universal Church But whether the Belief or Acknowledgment of it by All and every one of the members be Essential to the Members I would crave your answer but to this Question though it be nothing to my cause Was not a Baptized person in the primitive and ancient Churches a true Church-member presently upon Baptism And then tell me also Did not the ancient Fathers and Churches unanimously hide from their Catechumens even purposely hide the mysterie of the Eucharist as proper to the Church of understand and never opened it to the auditors till they were Baptized This is most undenyable in the concurrent vote of the ancients I think therefore that it follows that in the Judgement of the ancient Churches the Eucharist was but of the Integrity and not the Essence of a member of the Church and the acknowledgement of it by all the members a thing that never was existent Where you say your Major should have been granted or denyed without these distinctions I Reply 1. If you mean fairly and not to abuse the truth by Confusion such distinctions as you your self call Learned and substantial can do you no wrong They do but secure our true understanding of one another And a few lines in the beginning by way of distinction are not vain that may prevent much vain altercation afterwards When I once understand you I have done And I beseech you take it not for an injury to be understood As to your conclusion that you used no fallacy ex Accidente and that my instances are not apposite I Reply that 's the very life of the Controversie between us And our main Question is not so to be begged On the grounds I have shewed you I still averr that the holding of the Papacy is as Accidental to the universal Church as a Cancer in the breast is to a woman And though you say It is Essential and of Christs Institution that maketh it neither Essential nor of Christs Institution nor doth it make all his institutions to be essentialls Now of your second Syllogism 1. I shall never question the successive Visibility of the Church Whereas I told you out of your Fransc. Ã S. Clara that many or most of your own Schoolmen agree not to that which you say All Christians agree to you make no reply to it As to your Minor I have given you the Reasons of the necessity and harmlesness of my distinctions we need say no more to that a Congregation of Christians and a Church are Synonima But the word true was not added to your first term by you or me and therefore your instance here is delusory But to say whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church is all one as to say whatsoever Church of Christians is now the true Church When I know your meaning I have my end Though my syllogism say not that the Church of Rome acknowledgeth those things alwaies done and that by Christs institution it nevertheless explicateth the weakness of yours as to the fallacy accidentis For 1. The holding it alwaies done and that of Christs Institution may be either an Accident or but of the Integrity and ad bene esse yea possibly an errour 2. And I might as easily have given you Instances of that kind To your 3. Syllogism I Reply 1. When you say the Church had Pastors as you must speak of what existed and Universalls exist not of themselves so it is necessary that I tell you How far I grant your Minor and how far I deny it My argument from the Indians and others is not solved by you For 1. You can never prove that the Pope was preached to the Iberians by the Captive maid nor to the Indians by Frumentius 2. Thousands were made Christians and baptized by the Apostles without any preaching or profession of a papacy Act. 2. passim 3. The Indians now Converted in America by the English and Dutch hear nothing of the Pope nor thousands in Ethiopia 4. Your own do
unacquainted with the opinions of your own Divines and upon this mistake so confidently feign that it is our Novel writers forced to it by your arguments that have been so charitable to these Churches against antiquity that knew better If the Greeks and Latins tear the Church of Christ by their Condemnations of each other they may both be schismatical as guilty of making divisions in the Church though not as dividing from the Church And if they pretend the denyal of the Christian faith against each other as the cause you shall not draw us into the guilt of the uncharitableness by telling us that they know better then we If wise men fall out and fight I will not justifie either side because they are wise and therefore likelier then I to know the cause But what need we more to open your strange mistake and unjust dealing then the authority of your so much approved Council of Florence that received both Greeks and Armenians and the very words of the Popes Bull of the union which declare that the Greeks and Latins were found to mean Orthodoxly both the words are these Convenientes Latini Graeci in hac sacrosancta Oecumenica synodo magno studio invicem usi sunt ut inter alia articulus etiam ille de Divina Spiritus Sancti processione summa cum diligentia assidua inquisitione discuteretur Prolatis vero testimoniis ex Divinis Scripturis plurimisque authoritatibus sanctorum doctorum orientalium occidentelium aliquibus quidem ex Patre Filio quibusdam vero ex Patre per Filium procedere dicentibus Spiritū Sanctum ad eandem intelligentiam aspicientibus omnibus sub diversis vocabulis Graeci quidem asseruerunt quod id quod dicunt Spiritum Sanctum ex Patre procedere non hac mente proferrent ut excludant Filiū sed quia eis videbatur ut aiunt Latinos asserere spiritum Sanctum ex Patre Filioque procedere tanquam ex duobus principiis duabus Spirationibus ideo abstinuerunt à dicendo quod Spiritus Sanctus ex Patre procedat Filio Latini vero affirmaverunt non se hac mente dicere Spiritum Sanctum ex Filioque procedere ut excludant Patrem quin sit fons ac principium totius Deitatis Filii scilicet Spiritus Sancti aut quod id quod Spiritus Sanctu procedat ex Filio Filius à Patre non habeat sive quod duo ponant esse principia seu duas spirationes sed ut unum tantum asserunt esse principium unicamque spirationem Spiritus Sancti prout hactenus asseruerunt cum ex his omnibus unus idem eliciatur veritatis sensus tandem c. I pray you now tell it to no more that it is same Novel writers of ours prest by force of argument that have been the authors of this extenuation May heart even trembleth to think that there should be a thing called Religion among you that can so far extinguish both Charity and Humanity as to cause you to pass so direful a doom without authority or tryal on so great a part of the Christian world for such a word as this about so exceeding high a mysterie when your Pope and Council have pronounced a union of meanings And what mean you in your Margin to refer me to Nilus as if he asserted That the Greeks left the Communion of the Roman Church upon that difference alone Verily Sir in the high matters of God this dealing is scarce fair pardon this plainness consider of it your self The substance of Nilus book is about the Primacy of the Pope The very contents prefixed to the first book are these Oratio demonstrans non aliam c. An Oration demonstrating that there is no other cause of the dissension between the Latin and Greek Churches then that the Pope refuseth to defer the cognisance and iudgement of that which is controverted to a general Council but he will sit the sole Master and Iudge of the Controversie and will have the rest as Disciples to be hearers of or obey his word which is a thing aliene from the Laws and actions of the Apostles and Fathers And he begins his Book after a few words thus Causa itaque hujus dissidii c. The cause therefore of this difference as I judge is not the sublimity of the point exceeding mans capacity For other matters that have divers times troubled the Church have been of the same kind This therefore is not the cause of the dissention much less is it the speech of the Scripture it self which as being concise doth pronounce nothing openly of that which is controverted For to accuse the Scripture is as much as to accuse God himself But God is without all fault But who the fault is in any one may easily tell that is well in his wits He next shews that it is not for want of learned men on both sides nor is it because the Greeks do claim the Primacy and then concludeth it as before He maintaineth that your Pope succeedeth Peter only as a Bishop ordained by him as many other Bishops that originally were ordained by him in like manner do succeed him and that his Primacy is no Governing power nor given him by Peter but by Princes and Councils for order sale and this he proves at large and makes this the main difference Bellarmines answering his so many Arguments might have told you this if you had never read Nilus himself If you say that This point was the first cause I deny it but if it were true yet was it not the only or chief cause afterward The Munner of bringing in the filioque by Papal authority without a general Council was it that greatly offended the Greeks from the beginning But you say that when I have made the best of these Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants I cannot deduce them successively in all ages till Christ as a different Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Popes supremacy which was your proposition Reply I have oft told you we own no universal informing Head but Christ. In respect to him I have proved to you that is not my interest or design to prove us or them a different Congregation from you as you are Christians Nor shall you tempt me to be so uncharitable as to damn or unchristen all Papists as far as you do others incomparably safer and better then your selves But as you are Papal and set up a new informing head I have proved that you differ from all the antient Churches but yet that my cause requireth me not to make this proof but to call you to prove your own universal succession You add your Reason because these beforenamed were at first involved in your Congregation and then fell off as dead branches Reply This is but an untruth in a most publick matter of fact All the truth is this 1. Those Indians Ethiopians Persians c. without the Empire never fell
from you as to subjection as never being your subjects Prove that they were and you have done a greater wonder then Baronius in all his Annals 2 The Greeks and all the rest within the Empire without the Roman Patriarchate are fallen from your Communion if renouncing it be a fall but not from your subjection having given you but a Primacy as Nilus shews and not a Governing pewer over them The withering therefore was in the Roman branches if the corruptions of either part may be called a withering You that are the lesser part of the Church may easily call your selves the Tree and the greater part two to one the Branches but these beggings do but proclaim your necessities In good time you come to give me here at last some proof of an ancient Papacy as you think But first you quite forget or worse that it is not a man or two in the whole world in an age but the universal Church whose judgement and form we are now enquiring after You are to prove That all the Church in every age was for the Papal universal Government and so that none can be saved that is not 2. But instead of this which you should prove you prove not that those very single persons named by you had any opinion of the Papal Soveraignty 1. Your first Testimony is from Liberatus c. 16. John Bishop of Antioch makes an appeal to Pope Simplicius Reply 1. I see you are deceived by going upon trust But its pitty so to deceive others There was no such man as Iohn Bishop of Antioch in Simplicus raign Iohn of Antioch was he that made the stirs and divisions for Nestorius against Cyril and called the Schismatical Council at Ephesus and dyed Anno 436. having raigned thirteen years as Baronius saith and eighteen as Nicephorus He dyed in Sixtus the fifths time But it s said indeed that John Bishop of Alexandria made some address to Simplicius of which Baronius citeth Liberatus words not c. 16. but c. 18. ad An. D. 483. that John being expelled by the Emperour Zeno's command went first to Calendion Bishop of Antioch and so to Rome to Simplicius if Baronius were to be believed as his judge Liberatus saith that he took from Calendion Bishop of Antioch Letters to Simplicius to whom he appealed as Athanasius had done and perswaded him to write for him to Acacius Bishop of Constantinople which Simplicius did But Acacius upon the receipt of Simplicius Letters writ flatly to him that he knew no John Bishop of Alexandria but had taken Petrus Mogus as Bishop of Alexandria into his Communion and that without Simplicius for the Churches unity at the Emperours command Here you see how little regard Acacius made of your Pope and that the appeal was but to procure his Letters to Acacius which did him no good 2. But do you in good earnest think that all such addresses or appeals are ad superiorem judicem What more common then to appeal or make such addresses to any that have advantage of interest for the relief of the oppressed Young men appeal to the aged in Controversies and the less learned to the more learned and the poor to the rich or to the favorites of such as can relieve them Iohns going first to Antioch was no acknowledgement of superiority 3. But of this I must refer you to a full answer of Blondel against Perron de Primatu in Eccles. cap. 25. sect 76. where you may be satisfied of the vanity of your instance Whereas therefore you infer or you say nothing that because this Iohn thus appealed to Rome therefore he appealed thither as to the Vniversal Ruler of the Church The story derideth your consequence Much more that therefore the Vniversall Church held the Pope then to be the Vniversall Head or Governour Here 's nothing of Government but intreaty and that but within the Empire and that but upon the seeking of one distressed man that would be apt to go to those of most interest that might relieve him and all this rejected by Acacius and the Emperour A fair proof 2. Your 2. instance is that Flavianus appeals to the Pope as to his Iudge Epist. praeambul Concil Chalced. Reply I have perused all the Council of Chalcedon as it is in Binnius purposely to find the words you mention of Flavians appeal and I find not any such words In Flavianus own Epistle to Leo there are no such words nor any other that I can find but the word appeal once in one of the Emperours Epistles as I remember but without mentioning any Judge I will not use to turn over Volumes thus in vain for your citations while I see you take them on trust and do not tell me in any narrow compasse of cap. sect or pag. where to find them But had you found such words 1. An appeal is oft made from a partiall to an impartiall Judge though of equal power 2. He might appeal to the Bishop of Rome as one of his Judges in the Council where he was to be tried and not as alone And it is evident in the History that it was not the Pope but the Council that was his Iudge 3. The greatnesse of Rome and Primacy of Order not of Jurisdiction made that Bishop of speciall interest in the Empire and distressed persecuted men will appeal to those that may any whit relieve them But this proves no Governing power nor so much as any Interest without the Empire It being the custome of the Churches in the Empire to make the Votes of the Patriarchs necessary in their general Councils no wonder if appellations be made from those Councils that wanted the Patriarchs consent to other Councils where they consâ—nted in which as they gave Constantinâ—ple the second place without any pretence of a Divine Right and frequent appeals were made to that Seat so also they gave Rome the first Seat Of this whole matter Perron is fully answered already by Blondell de primatu cap. 25. sect 63. to which I refer you it being as easie to read it in Print as Writing Adding this only that as Flavian in his necessity seeking help from the Bishop of the prime Seat in the Empire did acknowledge no more but his Primacy of Order by the Laws of the Empire and the Councils thereof so the Empire was not all the world nor Flavian all the Church nor any more then one man and therefore if he had held as you will never prove he did the Universall Government of the Pope if you would thence argue that it was held by all the Church your consequence must needs be marvelled at by them that believe that One man is not the Catholick Church no more then seeking of help was an acknowledging an Universal Headship or Governing power And it is undeniably evident that the Church of Constantinople and all the Greek Churches did believe that Universal Primacy which in the Empire was set up to be of humane right and new
made to Iulius Ex Athan. ad solit Epist. Iulius in Lit. ad Arian apud Athan. Apol. 1. p. 753. Theodoret. lib. 2. c. 4. Athan. Apol. 2. Zozom l. 3. c. 7. Reply I marvel you urge such rancid instances to which you have been so fully and so often answered I refer you to Blondell de Primatu cap. 25. sect 14 15. Whittaker de Roman Pontif. p. 150. passim Dr. Field of the Ch. l. 5. c. 35 c. Briefly this may shew the vanity of your proof 1. Sozomen in that place saith that though he alone wrote for them yet he wrote in the Name and by the consent of all the Bishops of the West 2. The advantages of Rome by its reputation and greatness and the number and quality of the Western Bishops made their Judgement and Communion valuable to others Basil before cited tells you on what grounds when Churches disagree those that are distant are supposed to be impartiall especially when numerous To which is added which Basil intimates that some hope of help from the Secular powers by the interposition of the Western Bishops made them the more sought to 3. And the Primacy of Rome though it had no Soveraignty made it seem irregular that a Patriarch should be deposed without the knowledge and judgment of the Patriarchs of the precedent Seats This was the custome that Iulius spoke of and the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria might have said as much if the Patriarch of Ierusalem or Antioch had been deposed without them 4. Every Patriarch might absolve the Innocent and hold communion with them in his own Patriarchate and if any be against it as the Arrians here were and sent false accusations against Athanasius to Iulius he may require them to prove their accusations if they will have him moved by them Our own Communion with men is to be directed by the judgment of our own well informed consciences Iulius desired not any more then to be one with a Council that should decide the case Councils then had the Rule and Patriarchs were the most honourable Members of those Councils but no Rulers of them 5. Yet Sozomen and others tell you that Iulius when he had done his best to befriend Athanasius and Paulus could do no good nor prevail with the Bishops of the East till the Emperors commands prevailed yea the Eastern Bishops tell him that he should not meddle with their proceedings no more then they did with his when he dealt with the Novatians seeing the greatness of Cities maketh not the power of one Bishop greater then another and so they took it ill that he interposed though but to call the matter to a Synod when a Patriarch was deposed Any Bishop might have attempted to relieve the oppressed as far as Iulius did especially if he had such advantages as aforesaid to encourage him All your consequences here therefore are denied 1. It is denied that because Iulius made this attempt that therefore he was Universal Ruler in the Empire 2. It is denied that it will thence follow if he were so that it had been by Divine Right any more then Constantinople had equall priviledges by Divine Right 3. It is denied that it hence followeth that either by Divine or humane right he had any Power to govern the rest of the world without the Empire Had you all that you would rack these testimonies to speak it is but that he was made by Councils and Emperours the chief Bishop or Patriarch in a Nationall Church I mean a Church in one Princes Dominion as the Archbishop of Canterbury was in England But a Nationall or Imperiall Church is not the Universall And withall oppressed men will seek relief from any that may help them In your Margin you adde that Concerning S. Athanasius being judged and rightly by P. Julius Chamier acknowledgeth the matter of fact to be so but against all antiquity pretends that judgment to have been unjust Reply Take it not ill Sir I beseech you if I awake your conscience to tell me how you dare write so many untruths which you knew or might know I could quickly manifest Both parts of your saying of Chamier p. 497 are untrue 1. The matter of fact is it that he denieth He proveth to you from Sozomens words that Athanasius did make no appeal to a Judge but only fled for help to a friend He shews you that Iulius did not play the Judge but the helper of the spoiled and that it was not an act of Judgement 2. He therefore accuseth him not of wrong judgeing but only mentioneth his not hearing the accused to shew that he did not play the part of a Judge but a friend as Chrysostome did by some that fled to him I pray answer his reasons And for what you say again in your Margin of Theodoret I say again that he appealeth to the Bishop of Rome for help as a person who with the Western Bishops might sway much against his adversaries but not as to an Universal Governour or Judge no not as to the Universal Judge of the Church Imperiall much less of all the Catholick Churches 10. Your tenth proof is from Chrysostomes Case where you say some things untrue and some impertinent 1. That Chrysostome appeals to Innocent from the Council of Constantinople is untrue if you mean it of an Appeal to a superiour Court or Judge much more if as to an Universal Judge But indeed in his banishment when all other help failed he wrote to him to interpose and help him as far as he could I need no other proof of the Negative then 1. That there is no proof of the Affirmative that ever he made any such appeal 2. In his first Epistle to Innocent he tells him over and over that he appealed to a Synod and required Iudgement and that he was cast into a ship for banishment because he appealed to a Synod and a righteous judgement never mentioning a word of any such appeal to the Pope Yea he urgeth the Pope to befriend and help him by that argument that he was still ready to stand to uncorrupted Judges never mentioning the Pope as Judge By all which it appears it was but the assistance of his intercession that he requireth and withall perhaps the excommunicating of the wicked which another Bishop might have done Yea and it seems it was not to Innocent only but to others with him that he wrote for he would scarce else have used the terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But what need we more then his own words to know his request saith he Let those that are found to have done so wickedly be subject to the penalty of the Ecclesiasticall Laws but for us that are not convicted nor found guilty grant us to enjoy your Letters and your charity and all others whose society we did formerly enjoy The Ecclesiastical Laws enabled each Patriarch and Bishop to sentence in his own Diocess though the person sentenced lived out of
account then had not Rome those priviledges from the Apostles and consequently the whole Catholike Church was without them But the Antecedent is affirmed by that fourth great approved Council In Act. 16. Bin. p. 134. We everywhere following the definitions of the holy Fathers and the Canon and the things that have been now read of the hundred and fifty Bishops most beloved to God that were congregate under the Emperour Theodosius the great of pious memory in the Royal City of Constantinople new Rome we also knowing them have defined the same things concerning the priviledges of the same most holy Church of Constantinople new Rome For to the seat of old Rome because of the Empire of that City the Fathers consequently gave the priviledges And the hundred and fifty Bishops most beloved of God being moved with the same intention have given equal priviledges to the most holy seat of new Rome reasonably judging that the City adorned with the Empire and Senate shall enjoy equal priviledges with old Regal Rome Here we have the Testimony of one of the greatest general Councils of the humane original of Romes priviledges Bellarmine hath nothing to say but that they spoke falsly and that this clause was not confirmed by the Pope which are fully answered by me elsewhere But this is nothing to our present business It is a matter of fact that I use their Testimony for And if all the Bishops in two of the most approved general Councils called the Representative Catholike Church were not competent witnesses in such a case to tell us what was done and what was not done in those times then we have none The Papists can pretend to no higher testimony on their part The Church it self therefore hath here decided the controversie And yet note that even these priviledges of Rome were none of his pretended universal Government It s in vain to talk of the Testimonies of particular Doctors if the most renowned general Councils cannot be believed Yet I will add an Argument from them as conjunct Arg. 2. Had the Roman universal Soveraignty as essential to the Catholike Church been known in the daies of Tertullian Cyprian Athanasius Nazianzen Nyssen Basil Optatus Augustine and the other Doctors that confounded the Heresies or Schisms of those times e. g. the Novatians Donatists Arrians c. the said Doctors would have plainly and frequently insisted on it for the conviction of those Hereticks and Schismaticks But this they do not therefore it was not known in those times The consequence of the Major is evident hence The Doctors of the Church were men at least of common wit and prudence in the matters which they did debate therefore they would have insisted on this argument if then it had been known The reason of the consequence is because it had been most obvious easie and potent to dispatch their controversies 1. When the Arrians and many other Hereticks denied Christs eternal Godhead had it not been the shortest expeditious course to have cited them to the barr of the Judge of controversies the infallible Soveraign Head of the Church and convinced them that they were to stand to his judgement 2. Had not this Argument been at hand to have confounded all Heresies at once That which agreeth not with the Belief of the Roman Pope and Church is false But such is your opinion therefore 2. So for the Donatists when they disputed for so many years against the Catholikes which was the true Church had it not been Augustins shortest surest way to have argued thus That only is the true Church that is subject to the Pope of Rome and adhereth to him But so do not you therefore Either the Arrians Donatists and such others did believe the Papal Soveraignty and Vicarship or not If they did 1. How is it possible they should actually reject both the Doctrine and Communion of the Pope and Roman Church 2. And why did not the Fathers rebuke them for sinning against conscience and their own profession herein But if they did not believe the Papal Soveraignty then 2. How came it to pass that the Fathers did labour no more to convince them of that now supposed fundamentall Errour when 1. It is supposed as hainous a sin as many of the rest 2. And was the maintainer of the rest Had they but first demonstrated to them that the Pope was their Governour and Judge and that his Headship being essentiall to the Church it must needs be of his faith all Heresies might have been confuted the people satisfied and the controversies dispatched in a few words 3. Either Arrians Donatists Novatians and such like were before their defection acquainted with the Roman Soveraignty or not If they were not then it is a sign it was not commonly then received in the Church and that there were multitudes of Christians that were no Papists If they were then why did not the Fathers 1. Urge them with this as a granted truth till they had renounced it 2. And then why did they not charge this defection from the Pope upon them among their hainous crimes why did they not tell them that they were subjected to him as soon as they were made Christians and therefore they should not perfidiously revolt from him How is it that we find not this point disputed by them on both sides yea and as copiously as the rest when it would have ended all And for the Minor that the Fathers have not thus dealt with Hereticks the whole Books of Tertullian Nazianzen Nyssen Basil Optatus Hierom Augustine and others are open certain witnesses They use no such Argument but fill their Books with others most imprudently and vainly if they had known of this and had believed it Otherwise the Papists would never have been put to gather up a few impertinent scraps to make a shew with We see by experience here among us that this point is Voluminously debated and if we differ in other matters the Papists call us to the Roman bar and bring in this as the principall difference And why would it not have been so then between the Fathers and the Donatists Arrians and such like if the Fathers had believed this It s clear hence that the Papall Vicarship was then unknown to the Church of Christ. Arg. 3. The Tradition witnessed by the greater part of the Universal Church saith that the Papal Vicarship or Soveraignty is an innovation and usurpation and that the Catholick Church was many hundred years without it Therefore there was then no such Papal Church This is not a single testimony nor of ten thousand or ten millions but of the Major Vote of the whole Church and in Councils the Major Vote stands for the whole If this witness therefore be refused we cannot expect that the words of a few Doctors should be credited Nor may they expect that we credit any witness of theirs that is not more credible And that the Antecedent is true is known to the world as
examine qui cuncta ejus membra tibimet conaris Vniversalis appellatione supponere Here you see 1. That the unity and concord of the Church is not maintained by universal Headship but by fraternal communion and humility 2. That it wounded Paul and should do us to see the Church make men as it were their heads though they were Apostles and though Peter was one of them and that extra Christum beside Christ none no not Peter should be as a Head to Christs members 3. Much more abominable is it for any man to pretend to be the universal Bishop or Head to all Christs members 4. That the sin of this usurpation was against Christ the Churches Head and that before him in Judgement the usurper of universal Episcopacy will be confounded for this very thing 5. And that the crime of this title of universal Bishop was that it endeavoured to put all Christs members under him that used it tibimet supponere not to exclude all other Bishops but to put under him all Christs members These are the words of Gregory and if men can make what their list of words so full and plain and oft repeated in many Epistles what hope have they that their Judge of Controversies should do any more to end their Controversies then Scripture hath done which they cannot understand without such an unintelligible Judge He proceeds ibid. Quis ergo in hoc tam perverso vocabulo nisi ille ad imitandum proponitur qui despectis Angelorum legionibus secum socialiter constitutis ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpere ut nulli subesse solus omnibus praeesse videretur He maketh him the imitator of the Devil that aspiring above the rest of the Angels fell by pride But Bellarmine hath three Reasons to prove yet that Gregory after all this meant not the universal Headship or Episcopacy indeed 1. Because the holy Council of Chalcedon offered it him Ans. 1. A fair offer because two or three Deacons inscribed their Libels to him with the name of universal Archbishop And we must believe that the Council approved of this though we cannot prove it Or if they called him the Head as the City of London is the Head City in England and the Earle of Arundel the Head Earle or the Lord Chancelour the Head Judge that yet have no Government of the rest what advantage were this to the Roman Vicarship 2. If Gregory judge the name so blasphemous when it signifieth an universal Governour of the Church surely he believed that the Council offered it not to him in that sence but as he was the Episcopus primae sedis 3. But again I say the matter of fact is it that I am enquiring of And I have the testimony of this Roman Bishop that none of his Predecessors would receive that name 2. But saith Bellarmine he saith that the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter which is all one Ans. 1. But so it was committed also to the rest of the Apostles Paul had on him the care of all the Churches that claimed no Headship 2. He exprâ—sly excludeth Peters Headship both in the words before recited and after saying Certe Petrus Apostolus primum membrum or rather as Dr. Iames Corrupt of the Fathers Part. 2. p. 60 saith he found it in seven written Copies Apostolorum primus membrum Sanctae Vniversalis Ecclesiae est Paulus Andreas Iohannes quid â—liud quam singularium sunt plebium capita Et tamen sub uno capite omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae that is Peter the first of the Apostles is a member of the holy and universal Church Paul Andrew Iohn what are they but the Heads of the singular flocks of the people And yet all are members of the Church under one Head that is Christ so that Christ is the only Head Peter is but a member as the other Apostles are but not a Head 3. But saith Bellarmine Gregory could not but know that the title of Episcopus Vniversalis Ecclesiae which is all one had been oft assumed by the Popes Ans. 1. Whether was Bellarmine or Gregory the wiser man at least the fitter interpreter of those words would Gregory have made them so blasphemous foolish prophane and devilish if he had thought them of the same importance with those which his Predecessors used Or was he so silly as not to know that this might have been retorted on him What a silly â—or what a wicked dissembling hypocrite doth Bellarmine feign Pope Gregory to have been 2. But verily did the Learned Jesuite believe himself that Vniversalis Episcopus Ecclesiae Episcopus Ecclesiae Vniversalis are of the same signification Every Bishop in the world that adhered to the common Communion of Chrâ—â—â—ians and was a Catholike was wont to be called a Bishop of the Catholike Church and is indeed such but he is not therefore the universal Bishop of the Church But Bellarmine will not charge Gregory of such horrid dissimulation without reason His first reason is that Gregory did it for caution to prevent abuse Ans. What! charge it with blasphemy prophaness devilism wronging all the Church and also to excommunicate men for it and all this to prevent abuse when he held it lawful Did hell ever hatch worse hypocrisie then this that he fathers on his holiest Pope But 2. His other reason is worse then this forsooth because the question was only whether Iohn of Constantinople should have this title and not whether the Bishop of Rome should have it and therefore Gregory simply and absolutely pronounceth the name sacrilegious and prophane that is as given to Iohn but not to himself yet he refused it himself though due to him that he might the better repress the pride of the Bishop of Constantinople Ans. The sum is then that Gregory did meerly lye and dissemble for his own end He labours to prove that blasphemous sacrilegious c. which he desired But we will not judge so odiously of the Pope as Papists do Doth he charge the other Patriarchs and Bishops to give it no man doth he blame them after in other Epistles that gave him that Title and doth he profess that never any of his Predecessors received it and make so hainous a matter of it and yet all this while approve it as for himself Who will believe a Saint to be so diabolical that calls it an imitation of the Devil You see now what the Roman Cause is come to and whether their Church as Papal that is their Universal Soveraignty be not sprung up since Gregories dayes Hear him a little further ibid. Atque ut cuncta breviter cingalo locutionis adstringam sancti ante Legem sancti sub Lege sancti sub Gratia omnes hi perficientes Corpus Domini in membris sunt Ecclesiae constituti nemo se unquam Vniversalem vocare voluit Vestra autem sanctitas agnoscat quantum apud se tumeat quae illo nomine vocari
not at this day abhor the reading of the Office So that here is all invented new by Gregory which was hardly received in Spain and yet that changed since Arg. 9. If the Generality of Christians in the first ages and many if not most in the later ages have been free from the Essentials of the Papists faith â—hen their faith hath had no successive Visible Church professing it in all ages but the Christians that are against it have been Visible But the Antecedent is true as I prove in some instances 1. It is an Article of their faith determined in a General Council at Laterane and Florence that the Pope is above a Council But that this hath not been successively received the Council of Basil and Constance witness making it a new Heresie 2. It is an Article of their faith that a Generall Council is above the Pope for it is so determined at Basil and Constance But that this hath had no successive duration the Council of Laterane and Florence witness 3. It is an Article of their faith that the Pope may depose Princes for denying Transubstantiation and such like Heresies and also such as will not exterminate such Hereticks from their dominions and may give their dominions to others and discharge their Subjects from their oaths and fidelity For it is determined so in a Council at Laterane But this hath not been so from the beginning Not when the 13. Chapter to the Romans was written Not till the dayes of Constantine Not till the dayes of Gregory that spake in contrary language to Princes And Goldastus his three Volumes of Antiquities shew you that there hath been many Churches still against it 4. It is an Article of their faith that the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is truly really and substantially in the Eucharist and that there is a Change made of the whole substance of Bread into the body and of the whole substance of Wine into the blood which they call Transubstantiation So the Council of Trent But the Catholick Church hath been of a contrary judgement from age to age as among many others Edm. Albertinus de Eucharist hath plainly evinced though a quarreller hath denyed it and little more And it s proved in that successively they judged sense and Reason by it a competent discerner of Bread and Wine 5. It is now de fide that the true Sacrament is rightly taken under one kind without the cup as the Councils of Constance and Trent shew But the Catholick Church hath practised and the Apostles and the Church taught otherwise as the Council of Constance and their Writers ordinarily confess 6. It is an Article of their faith as appears in the Trent Oath that we must never take and interpret Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers But the Catholick Church before these Fathers could not be of that mind and the Fathers themselves are of a contrary mind and so are many learned Papists 7. It is an Article of their faith that there is a Purgatory and that the souls there detained are holpen by the suffrages of the faithful But the latter was strange to all the old Catholick Church as Bishop Vsher and others have proved and the very being of Purgatory was but a new doubtfull indifferent opinion of some very few men about Augustines time 8. It is now an Article of their faith that the holy Catholick Church of Rome is the mother and mistris of all Churches But I have shewed here and elsewhere that the Catholick Church judged otherwise and so doth for the most part to this day 9. It is now an Article of their faith that their Traditions are to be received with equall pious affection and reverence as the holy Scripture But the Catholick Church did never so believe 10. The Council of Basil made it de fide that the Virgin Mary was conceived without Originall sin But the Catholick Church never judged so 11. It s determined by a Council now that the people may not read the Scripture in a known tongue without the Popes License But the Catholick Church never so thought as I have proved Disp. 3. of the safe Religion 12. The Books of Maccabees and others are now taken into the Canon of faith which the Catholick Church received not as such as Dr. Cosin and Dr. Reignolds have fully proved To this I might add the Novelty of their Worship and Discipline but it would be too tedious and I have said enough of these in other writings See Dr. Challoner pag. 88 89. In 16. points Dr. Challoner proveth your Novelty from your Confessions Indeed his Book de Eccles. Cath. though small is a full answer to your main Question Arg. 10. If Multitudes yea the far greatest part of Christians in all ages have been ignorant of Popery but not of Christianity then hath there been a succession of Visible Professors of Christianity that were no Papists but the antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent In this age it is an apparent thing that the far greatest part are ignorant of formal Popery 1. They confess themselves that the common people and most of the nobility of Habassia Armenia Greece Russia and most other Eastern Churches that are not Papists are ignorant of the Controversie 2. They use to tell us here among Protestants that there is not one of many that know what a Papist is 3. We know that of those that go under the name of Papists there is not one of a multitude knoweth We hear it from the mouths of those we speak with I have not met with one of ten of the poorer sort of them even here among us that knoweth what a Papist or Popery is but they are taught to follow their Priests and to say that theirs is the true Church and old Religion and to use their Ceremonious worship and to forbear coming to our Churches c. and this is their Religion And in Ireland they are yet far more ignorant And it s well known to be so in other parts Their Priests they know and the Pope they hear of as some person of eminent Power in the Church But whether he be the Universal Vicar of Christ and be over all others as well as them whether this be of Gods institution or by the grant of Emperours or Councils c. they know not And no wonder when the Papists think that the Council of Chalcedon spoke falsly of the humane Originall of the Primacy in the Imperiall territories And when the Councils of Basil and Constance knew not whether Pope or Council was the Head And that the people were as ignorant and much more in former ages they testifie themselves And before Gregories dayes they must needs be ignorant of that which was not then risen in the world Yea Dr. Field hath largely proved Append lib. 3. that even the many particular points in which the Papists now differ
from us were but the opinions of a faction among them before Luther and that the Western Church before Luther was Protestant even in those particular Controversies though this is a thing that we need not prove And as Dr. Potter tells them pag. 68. The Roman Doctors do not fully and absolutely agree in any one point among themselves but only in such points wherein they agree with us In the other disputed between us they differ one from another as much almost as they differ from us He appeals for this to Bellarmines Tomes Though I cannot undertake to make this good in every point yet that proper Popery was held but by a Faction in the Western Church even at its height before Luther is easily made good He that readeth but the Writers before Luther and in History noteth the desires of Emperours Kings and Universities and Bishops for Reformation of the things that we have reformed may soon see this to be very true It was Avitas Leges consuetudines Angliae as Rog. Hovedâ—n and Matth. Paris in H. 2. shew that the Pope here damned and anathematized all that favoured and observed them O tender Father even to Kings O enemy of Novelties The German History collected by Reuberus Pistorus Freherus and Goldastus shews it as pâ—ain as day light that a Papal Faction by fury and turbulency kept under the far greater part of the Church by force that indeed dissented from them even from Hildebrands dayes till Luthers or near Saith the Apologia Henrici 4. Imperat. in M. Frâ—heri Tom. 1. p. 178. Behold Pope Hildebrands Bishops when doubtless they are murderers of Souls and bodies such as deservedly are called the Synagogue of Satan yet they write that on his and on their side or party is the holy Mother Church When the Catholick that is the Universal Church is not in the Schism of any side or parties but in the Universality of the faithfull agreeing together by the spirit of Peace and Charity And p. 179. See how this Minister of the Devil is beside himself and would draw us with him into the ditch of perdition that writeth that Gods holy Priesthood is with only 13. or few more Bishops of Hildebrands and that the Priesthood of all the rest through the world are separated from the Church of God when certainly not only the testimony of Gregory and Innocent but the judgement of all the holy Fathers agree with that of Cyprian that he is an Alien prophane an enemy that he cannot have God for his Father that holdeth not the Unity of the Church which he after describeth to have one Priesthood Et p. 181. But some that go out from us say and write that they defend the party of their Gregory not the Whole which is Christs which is the Catholick Church of Christ. And p. 180. But our Adversaries that went from us not we from them use thus to commend themselves We are the Catholicks we are in the Unity of the Church So the Writer calls them Catholicks and us that hold the faith of the holy Fathers that consent with all good men that love peace and brotherhood us he calls Schismaticks and Hereticks and Excommunicate because we resist not the King And p. 181. Isidore saith Etym. l. 8. The Church is called Catholick because it is not as the conventicles of Hereticks confined in certain countries but diffused through the whole world therefore they have not the Catholick faith that are in a part and not in the Whole which Christ hath redeemed and must reign with Christ. They that confess in the Creed that they believe the holy Catholick Church and being divided into parties hold not the Unity of the Church which Unity believers being of one heart and one soul properly belongs to the Catholick Church So this Apol. One Objection I must here remove which is all and nâ—thing viz. That the Armenians Greeks Georgians Abassines and many others here named differ from Protestants in many points of faith and therefore they cannot be of the same Church Ans. 1. They differ in nothing Essentiall to our Church or Religion nor near the Essence 2. Protestants differ in some lesser points and yet you call them all Protestants your selves 3. I prove undeniably from your own pens that men differing in matters of faith are all taken to be of your Church and so of one Church and therefore you contradict your selves in making all points of faith to be Essentials of the Christian Religion or Church 1. The Council of Basil and Constance differed de fide with the Popâ— and the Council of Laterane and Florence They expresly affirm their doctrine to be de fide that the Council is above the Pope and may depose him c. and the contrary Heresie And Pighius Hierarch Eccles. lib. 6. saith that these Councils went against the undoubted faith and judgement of the Orthodox Church it self 2. Their Saint Tho. Aquinas and most of their Doctors with him differ from the second Council of Nice in holding the Cross and Image of Christ to be worshipped with Latria which that Council determined against See more Arguments in my Key for Cath. p. 127 128. and after I will now add a Testimony sufficient to silence Papists in this point and that is The Determination of the Theological faculty of Paris under their great Seal against one Iohan. de Montesono ordinis Praedic as you may find it after the rest of the Errors rejected by that University in the end of Lombard printed at Paris 1557. pag. 426. Their 3. Conclusion is that Saint Thom. Aquin. doctrine is not so approved by the Church as that we must believe that it is in no part of it erroneous de fide in matter of faith or hereticall They prove it because it hath many contradictions even in matter of faith and therefore they ought not to believe it not hereticall Here fol. 426 427. they give six examples of his contradictions and therefore they conclude that though he were no Heretick because not pertinacious yet they ought not to believe that his doctrine was in no part hereticall or erroneous in the faith They further argue thus If we must believe his doctrine not hereticall c. this should be chiefly because it is approved by the Church But there is some doctrine much more approved by the Church then the doctrine of S. Tho. which yet is in some part of it hereticall or erroneous in the faith therefore The Minor they prove by many examples The first is of Peters doctrine Gal. 2. I own not this by citing it The second is of Cyprian The third of Hierom and they add that the same may be said of Augustine and many more approved Doctors The fourth example is Lombard himself who they say hath somewhat erroneous in the faith The fifth is Gratian who had he pertinaciously adhered to his doctrine they say had been a manifest Heretick And say they some say the
â—irst sense is either spoken of one that professing the rest denyeth some one or more essential Articles of the Faith or parts of Christianity or one that only denyeth not what is necessary to the Being but to the Integrality or sober and better-being of a Christian. 3. Hereticks are either convict and condemned or such as never were tryed and judged 4. Hereticks condemned are either condemned by their proper Pastors or by others 5. If by others either by Usurpers or by meer equal neighbour consociate Pastors 6. They are condemned either jâ—stly clâ—ve non errante or unjustly clave errante 7. They are either judged to be materially as to the quality of their errour Hereticks or also formally as obstinate impenitent and habitually stated Hereticks Upon these necessary distinctions I answer your Question in these Propositions Prop. 1. As the word Hereticks signifieth Schismaticks as such so Hereticks with drawing from some parts of the universal Church only may yet be parts of the whoâ—e even with those parts from which they separate If they say You are no parts and therefore we disown you and will have no Communion with you this maketh neither cease to be parts and while both own the Head and the Body as such they have an union in tertio and so a communion in the principal respects while they peevishly disclaim it in other respects Besides that the local or particular Communion is it that is proper to members of a particular Church and therefore the renouncing it only separates him from that Church But it is the general Communion that belongs to us as members of the Church Universal which may be still continued But should any renounce the Body of Christ as such and separate not from this or that Church but from the whole or from the Church Universal as such this man would be no member of the Church Prop. 2. As the word Heretick is taken for one that denyeth any thing essential to Christianity so an Heretick if latent is out of the Church Deo judice as to the invisible part or soul of the Church as Bellarmine calls it as a latent Infidel is but he may be if latent in the outward communion or as Bellarmine calls him a dead member that properly is none as the straw and chaffe are in the corn-field Prop. 3. Such an Heretick convict and judged by the Pastors of that particular Church of which he is a subject-member is accordingly to be avoided and in foro illius Ecclesiae is so far cast out of that Church as the sentence importeth Prop. 4. Such an Heretick if he be a Pastor of one Church and be convict and condemned by the consociate co-equal Pastors of the neighbour Churches is accordingly cast out from communion of all the Churches of which they are Pastors Prop. 5. So far as any Christians through the world have sufficient proof or cognisance of the said conviction and condemnation they are all bound accordingly to esteem the condemned Heretick and avoid him Prop 6. If Heresie be taken for the obstinate impenitent resisting or rejecting of any point of Faith that is of Divine Revelation which is made so plain to the person that nothing but a wicked will could cause such resistance or rejection such persons being justly convicted and condemned as aforesaid are to be taken as persons condemned for obstinacy and impenitency in any other sin and are out of the Church as far as a man condemned for impenitency in drunkenness or fornication is Prop. 7. Heresie taken in this softer sense for the denyal of a truth of Divine revelation not essential to the Christian Religion or necessary to the Being of a Christian excludeth no man from the Church of it self unless they are legally convict of wicked Impenitency and obstinacy in defending it Prop. 8. A sentence passed in alieno foro by an Usurper that hath no true Authority thereto proveth no man an Heretick Prop. 9. A sentence passed by an Authorized Pastor or by many if it be notoriously unjust clave errante proveth no man an Heretick or out of the Universal Church Prop. 10. A sentence passed by one Church or many consociate binds none to take the condemned person to be an Heretick and out of the Universal Church but those that have sufficient notice of the Authority of the Judges and validity of the Evidence or a ground of violent presumption as it s called that the sentence is just Prop. 11. He that is sentenced an Heretick or Impenitent by the Pastors of some Churches and acquit by the equally-authorized Pastors of other Churches is not eo nomine to be condemned or acquit by a third Church but used as the evidence requireth Prop. 12. There is an actual excommunication pro medelâ and pro tempore due for an actual willful defence of error or for other willful sin which statedly puts not a man out of the Church as there is an excommunication à statu Relatione which is due for stated habitual or obstinate impenitency in that or other great or known sin Having thus distinctly told you my judgement how far Hereticks are or are not in or out of the universal Church I add in order to the application 1. That this whole debate is nothing to the great difference between you and us it being not de fide in your own account but a dogma theologicum which you differ about among your selves Bellarmine tells you Alphonsus a Castro maintaineth that Hereticks are in the Church de Eccles. l. 3. c. 4. And he himself saith that haeretici pertinent ad Ecclesiam ut oves ad ovile unde confugerunt ibid. c. 4. so that they are oves still and if it be but ovile particulare veluti Romanum that they fly from and not the Vniversal that proves them not out of the Vniversal Church And Bellarmine saith of the Catechumen Excommunicatis that they are de anima et si non de corpore Ecclesiae ib. c. 2. and may be saved cap. 6. And the anima Ecclesiae is not incorporated in the world without All that have that soul are of that Church which Christ that animateth his members is the head of Which made Melchior Canus fatente Bellarmino de Eccl. l. 3. c. 3. confess the being of that which indeed is the true Catholike Church saying of the Vnbaptized Believers that sunt de Ecclesia quae comprehendit omnes fideles ab Abel usque ad consummationem mundi 2. Many Popes have been condemned for Hereticks even by General Councils as not only Henorius by two or three but Eugenius by the Council of Basil when yet he kept his place and the rest come in as his successors And your writers frequently confess that a Pope may be an Heretick as Pope Adrian himself affirmeth Now if these are not of the Church then they are not Heads of the Church and then being essential parts of your Church it followeth that your Church is heretical
and unchurched with them But if these Popes may be in the Church and Heads of yours while Hereticks then so may others 3. It s commonly said by others of yours as well as Bellarmine that the Councils were misinformed about Honorius and the Popes that consented to those Councils and so that he was not a Heretick nor out of the Church Also that a Pope may erre in matter of fact and unjustly excommunicate If so a Pope and Council may erre about another as well as about Honorius or other Popes and therefore their sentence be no proof that such are out of the Church no more then that he and Eugenius were out 4. As the Pope and his Synods condemn the Greeke so the Greeks condemn and excommunicate you as formerly the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope have excommunicated each other I am therefore no more bound to take them for excommunicate persons than you they having as much authority over you as you over them and their witness being to us as credible as yours 5. The Abassines Armenians Greeks c. are not proved to deny any essential point of the Christian Religion or which is necessary to the Being of a Christian or Church 6. Nor are they proved to be willful obstinate and impenitent in defending any errors with a wicked mind and so to be formally Hereticks in your own sense 7. They are large Nations and millions of souls and their Pastours numerous so that its impossible they should be all legally by you convicted They never spake for themselves nor were witnesses heard against them Noxa caput sequitur Guilt of Heresie is to be proved of each individual whom you condemn If a few Bishops were Hereticks or a Prince were such that proves not that the rest and all the Pastors or people even to many millâ—ons are such Or if half had been such in former ages that proves not that half or any are such now Christ never appointed the excommunicating of millions for the sakes of a few of their Rulers nor of whole Nations unheard but of single persons upon a just and equal tryal If therefore your Pope or any of his Councils which you falsly call General do excommunicate or condemn Habassia Armenia Georgia Syria and other Naâ—ions as Hereticks it is so far from unchurching them or proving them such as that it is one of the greatest sins that can be committed by the sons of men with inhumane injustice cruelty pride and arrogancy presuming to pass a damning sentence on so many millions of souls whose faces you never saw nor were ever called to a legal tryal 8. Your own writers ordinarily acquit the Greeks from Heresie and those of them that have travelled to other Countries as Syria c. acquit most of them as I have proved in former writings out of their own words not needful therefore here to be recited when you may see any writings 9. Your Pope and Bishops is none of their authorized Pastor and therefore hath no power as such to judge them And as neighbour Churches they have as much to do to judge you as you to judge them Therefore they are never the more out of the Church for your judgement any more than you for theirs 10. There are as many and as great errors proved by them to be in your Church as is by you to be in theirs so that in sum your cause being much worse and your censure of them proving you guilty of such inhumane cruelty injustice arrogancy usurpation c. by condemning them you go much nearer to prove your selves no Christians and no Church than them 11. And yet I think the far greatest part of them many thousands to one are not actually excommunicated or condemned by any pretended sentence of your own whatever your writers may say of them and whatever one Council might say of some few in some one age 12. Lastly It can be no matter of certainty to you your self or any of you that these Nations or Churches are Hereticks both because it is a thing that none of your approved Councils have determined of as to any person now living nor to any considerable number comparatively in other ages and also because you confess your Pope and Councils fallible in these cases of fact and personal application You cannot therefore build upon such acknowledged uncertainties BUt Sir having thus answered your demand I must ask you what 's all this to the Answer of my last Papers which I have now near a year expected from you I suspected some such â—ergiversation when I took the boldness to urge you so hard to the tasks that you were reasonably engaged to perform viz. 1. To prove by close Argumentation the nullity of our Churches as you begun in your first Argument 2. To answer my proofs of our successive visibility 3. To prove your own successive visibility in all ages since Christ as I have proved ours I do therefore once more urge you speedily to do this assuring you that else I must take it for an open deserting of your Cause But yet I must add that if you will please to dispute the main cause in difference between us upon equal terms we have yet other Questions in which we differ that are lower then these and nearer the foundation Besides the forementioned work therefore I desire that you will dispute the main Cause in two distinct disputations in one of which be you the Opponent and bring your strongest Arguments against the Reformed Churches and Religion and in the other I will be Opponent and argue against Popery in the beginning agreeing upon the sense of those terms that we are like to have greatest use of through our disputation If you will but let us meet and state our sense of such terms before I return into the Country that we may the better manage it after at a distance it will be worth our labour And for verbal dispute I shall at any fit time and place most cheerfully entertain it if so many doubting persons may be present as that it may be worth our labour In the mean time I pray pardon it if the roughness of any passages discover the frailty of Your Servant R. Baxter Iune 7. 1660. Mr. Iohnsons EXPLICATION OF Some of the most used TERMS WITH QUERIES Thereupon And his ANSWER And my REPLY LONDON Printed 1660. AFter the writing of the foregoing Paper I again urged Mr. Johnson to the speedy answering my Papers Of which when he gave me no hope I committed them to the Press But afterward he seemed more inclinable both to that and to a Verbal conference And in order to both if we had opportunity I desired him first that we might agree on the sense of those terms that are like to be most used in the substance of our Controversie promising him that I will give him my sense of any term when he shall desire it and accordingly he explained his sense of many of them as
necessary to the being of a true particular Church Bellarmine granteth Lib. 3. de Eccles. c. 10. that it is indeed to us uncertain that our Pastors have potestatem ordinis jurisdictionis and that we have but a moral certainty that they are true Bishops though we may know that they hold Christs place and that we owe them obedience and that to know that they are Our Pastors non requiritur nec fides nec Character Ordinis nec legitima electio sed solum ut habeantur pro talibus ab Ecclesia i. e. It is not requisite that they have faith or the Character of Order or lawful election but only that they be taken for such by the Church And if it be enough that their Church repute their Pastors to be elected ordained and believers though they are not so indeed then can no more be necessary to ours We repute ours as confidently to be lawfully elected and ordained as they do theirs 3. It is contrary to the Papists own opinion that any Consecration much less Canonical is necessary to the being of their Vniversal Head I need not cite their Authors for this as long as you have 1. The History of their Practices And 2. The confession of this learned man that I dispute with in the explication of the term Pope in these his last Papers And that which is not necessary to their Pope cannot by them be made necessary to our Bishops 4. Nothing in Church History more certain then that the Church of Rome hath had no continued succession of a truely elected or ordained Pope according to their own Canons 1. If Infidelity or Heresie judged by a Council in the case of Honorius Ioh. 23. Eugenius c. will not prove a nullity and intercision 2. If Simony Murder Adultery c. will not prove it 3. If about fourty years Schisme at once will not prove it none knowing who was the true Pope but by the prevalency of his secular power and their writers confessing that it is known to none but God 4. If intrusion without any just election will not prove it Then there is no danger to those Churches that are lyable to no such accusations But if any or all of these will prove it the Roman intercision is beyond dispute as I shall further manifest on any just call if it be denyed 5. The standing Law and Institution of Christ is it that gives the Power by imposing the duty of Ministration and Ordination only determineth of the person that shall receive it together with election and solemnizeth it by Investiture as Coronation to a King that is a King before I have already proved that an uninterrupted succession of Regular Ordination is no more necessary to the being of a Church then uninterrupted succession of Regular Coronation is to the being of a King or Kingdom which I am ready to make good 6. This whole case of Ordination I have already spoken to so carefully and fully according to my measure in my second Dispute of Church Government that I shall suppose that man hath said nothing to me requiring my reply on this point that doth not answer that And to write the same thing here over again cannot fairly be expected 7. Voetius de desperata causa Papatus hath copiously done the same against Iansenius which they should answer satisfactorily before they call for more 8. The Nullity which they suppose to make the Intercision is either the Ordination we had from the Papist Bishops before our Reformation or the Ordination that we received since If the former be a nullity then all the Papists Ordinations are null and so they nullifie their Church and Ministry That the latter is no nullity we are ready to make good against any of them all Object But if you own your Ordination as from the Church of Rome you own their Church Answ. We consider them 1. As Christian Pastors 2. As Popish Pastors As Christian Pastors in the Catholike Church their Ordination is no more a nullity than their Baptizing which we count valid But as Popish they have no authority for either Object But they gave both Baptism and Ordination as Papists and it must be judged of by the intention of the giver and receiver Answ. It is the Baptism and Ordination of Christs Institution as such which was pretended to be given and received Could we prove that they Administred any other or otherwise they say they would disown it As such therefore we must take it till we can prove that they destroy the very essence of it If it be given and taken secondarily as Popish the scab of their corruption polluteth it but not nullifieth it So they profess themselves first Ministers of Christ and but subordinately as they think of the Pope so much therefore as belongs to them in their first and lawful relation may be valid though so much as respecteth their usurped relation be sinful Had I been baptized or ordained by one of their Priests I would disown all the corruptions of them but not the baptism and ordination it self 9. There is no necessity to the being or well-being of a particular Church that it hath continued from the Apostles daies or that its particular Ministry have had no intercision If Germany were converted but lately to the Christian Faith it may be nevertheless a true part of the Catholike Church If Ierusalem had sometime a Church and sometime none it may have now a true Church nevertheless 10. If our Ordination had failed by an intercision it might as well be repaired from other Churches that have had a continued succession as from Rome And much better because without participation of their peculiar corruptions Or if any Bishops that were of the Papal faction should repent of their Poperie and not of their Ordination they might Ordain us as Bishops and repair our breach And indeed that was the way of our continued Ordination Many that repented that they were Popish Prelates continued the office of Christian Bishops and by such our Ancestors were Ordained As Christianity and Episcopacy were before Popery and so are they still separable from it and may continue when it is renounced Besides what I have more fully said in the foresaid dispute of Ordination I see no need of adding any more against this Objection about successive Ordination and Ministerial Power As to their other Objection which they make such a stir with and take no notice of the Answer which we have so often given viz. When every Sect pretend that they have the true Church and Ministry who shall judge I again Answer There is a Iudicium privatum and publicum A private judgement of discerning belongs to every man The publick judgement is either Civil or Ecclesiastical The Civil judgement is who shall be thus or thus esteemed of in order to Civil encouragement or discouragement as by corporal punishments or rewards This judgement belongeth only to the Civil Magistrate The Ecclesiastical
judgement is in order to Ecclesiastical Communion or Excommunication And so it belongs to those with whom the person is in Communion in their several capacities The members of a particular Church are to be judged Authoritatively by the Pastors of that Church and by the people by a Private judgement of Discerning Pastors should associate for Communion of Churches and so in order to that Communion of Association it belongs to the several Associations to judge of the Members of the Society which yet is not by a publike Governing judgement For in Councils or Associations the Major Vote are not properly the Governors of the lesser part But those that are out of capacity of Communion have nothing to do to judge of the Aptitude of Pastors or Churches in order to Communion or non-Communion And for the Pope he hath nothing to do with us at such a distance whose persons and cases are wholly unknown to him he being neither our Governour nor our Associate But if we and our case were known to him he may judge of us so far as we may judge of him And other judgement what ever men may say to deceive there is none to decide our controversies but the final judgement of the Vniversal Iudge who is at the door A LETTER Written to Thomas Smith A Papist Concerning the Church of Rome LONDON Printed 1660. Reverend Sir THe noted sanctity admirable integrity and extraordinary charity so eminently appearing in your pious actions and as I have some cause to think the indelible characters of your sacred function hath animated me to make choice of your self rather then any of your coat to this present address hoping your candour and tenderness will bear with what may be by others less sensible of the value of immortal souls slighted interpreted according to the candid and true sense of your supplicant by you It hath pleased the great and terrible Iudge of heaven and earth to put me upon some thoughts more seriously then ordinary of my eternal estate and to be somewhat doubtful in the midst of external perturbations of those internal grounds which I have formerly relyed upon And truely Sir with all cordialness my desire is clearly to know the mind of my God which were I truely satisfied in I should soon wave all other interests to entertain and assuring my self according to what I have seen and read the Church of Rome to which I have long cleaved and adhered to be the pillar and ground of truth and that Catholike Church which the ancient Creed testifies we are to believe in My desire is to be as soon satisfied as may be of your thoughts whether it ever were a true Church which I suppose you will not deny when you consider the first verse of the Epistle to the Romans and if so when it made its defection The reason of my urging this is because I think all other questions to be but going about the bush and the true Church being proved all arguments else easily are answered I have heard Protestants aver the ancient maxime viz. Extra Ecclesiam non est salus Therefore I suppose it the only thing pertinent to my purpose and necessary to salvation to enquire after My occasions will suddenly draw me from these parts unless I hear from you speedily and doubt not Sir but I am one who freely will resign my self to hear truth impartially Therefore I beseech you to send something to me by way of satisfaction the next Saturday after which you shall be more particularly sensible who the person is that applies himself to you and in the interim subscribes himself Sir A thirsty troubled soul and yours to his power Tho. Smith Feb. 11. 1656. Direct your Letter to me if you please to Mr. John Smiths house next door to the sign of the Crown in the broad street Worcester Good Sir be private for the present otherwise it may be prejudicial to some temporal affairs agitating at this time Sir THat you can have such charitable thoughts of one that is not of the Roman subjection and of my function being not received from the Pope is so extraordinary yea and contrary to the judgement of your writers that I must needs entertain it with the more gratitude and some admiration And that you are so impartially willing to entertain the truth as you profess though it be no more then the truth deserves of you and your own wellfare doth require yet is the more aimiable in you by how much the more rare in those of your Profession so far as my acquaintance can inform me for most of them that I have met with understand not well their own Religion nor think themselves much concerned to understand it but refer me to others for a Reason of their hope For my part I do the more gladly entertain the occasion of this entercourse with you though unknown that I may learn what I know not and may be true to my own conscience in the use of all means that may conduce to my better information And therefore I shall plainly answer your Questions according to the measure of my understanding most solemnly professing to you that I will say nothing which comes not from my heart in plain simplicity and that I will with exceeding gladness and a thousand thanks come over to your way if I can finde by any thing that you shall make known to me that it is the mind of God that I should so do And therefore I am desirous that if what I write to you shall seem unsound you would not only afford me your own advice for the correction of it but also the advice of the most learned of your mind to whom you shall your self think meet to communicate it But on these conditions 1. That it be a person of a tender conscience that dare speak nothing but what he verily believes 2. That he will argue closly and not fly abroad or dilate Rhetorically And for any divulging of it to your danger or hurt you need not fear it For these two grounds of my following answers I shall here promise 1. That I am so far from persecuting bloody desires against those of your way that their own bloody principles and practices where they have power in Italy Spain c. hath done much to confirm me that the cause is not of God that must be so upheld and carried on 2. And I am so far from cruel uncharitable censures of any that unfeignedly love the Lord Jesus and his truth that it is the greatest motive to me of all other to dislike your Profession because it is so notoriously against Christian charity restraining the Catholike Church to your selves and outing and condemning the far greatest part of Christians in the world and that because they believe not in the Pope though they believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and all that the Primitive Church believed I am so Catholike that according to my present judgement I cannot